Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYSIAN FEDERATION

North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further developments have taken place in respect of the proposed Malaysian Federation to include British North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak; if the Sultan of Brunei has indicated his approval of the proposal; if Her Majesty's Government, in consultation with the Malayan Government, will invite the Sultan to make some of his educational and medical services available to other Territories in the proposed Federation; and whether the proposal will be subject to a referendum of the peoples in each of the Territories.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): It has been agreed with the Government of the Federation of Malaya that a Commission of Inquiry should visit North Borneo and Sarawak to ascertain the views of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak on inclusion in the proposed new Federation and to make recommendations in the light of its assessment of these views. Steps are now being taken to establish it.
The Sultan of Brunei has stated in the Brunei Legislative Council that he welcomes the proposal for a Federation of Malaysia and has said that public opinion in his State will be sought.
The issues raised in the third part of the Question would be for the Governments of the proposed Federation and the State of Brunei to consider.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Sultan of Brunei has, in reply to the questions I have addressed to the Minister, stated that he will make these medical and educational services available to the other prospective members of the Federation, because these services in Brunei are particularly valuable? Can the Secretary of State for the Colonies give any indication about how the people in the respective areas will be consulted?

Mr. Maudling: In reply to the first point, that was what I had in mind when I said that the issues raised in the third part of the Question would be matters for the Governments of the proposed Federation and Brunei to consider. It is premature to do so at this stage. In reply to the second point, we expect to proceed rapidly with the establishment of the Commission and its terms of reference.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH BORNEO

Copra

Mr. Turner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the tonnage of copra exported from North Borneo ports during the first eleven months of 1960 and 1961, respectively.

Mr. Maudling: The figures are 72,654 and 59,500.

Mr. Turner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1960, the copra imports to North Borneo amounted to 61 per cent. of the total exports of copra from the Colony and that this was 22 per cent. of the total export trade of North Borneo, whereas if my mathematics are correct, the corresponding figure is something like 15 per cent. on a smaller total export trade? Does not this indicate a deplorable state of affairs owing to piracy in the East Borneo seas?

Mr. Maudling: Piracy is one factor, but the fluctuations in the market price of copra are another and, possibly, more important factor.

Piracy

Mr. Turner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many acts of piracy were reported to the North


Borneo Government during the first eleven months of 1960 and 1961, respectively.

Mr. Maudling: The Answer is 47 and 97.

Mr. Turner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an extraordinary increase in the number of cases of piracy? Is he satisfied that the measures so far taken by his Department in conjunction with the North Borneo Government are adequate to meet the situation?

Mr. Maudling: I am a little worried about this and intended to make some further inquiries. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling it to my attention.

Mr. Paget: If the Singapore base cannot enable us to deal with local pirates, what the devil can it do?

Mr. Maudling: The main purpose of the Singapore base is slightly different.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister state what kind of pirates are operating? What race are they, for example?

Mr. Maudling: Without notice, I am not sure what race they are, but they are very unpleasant pirates.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Expatriate Civil Servants (Compensation)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which ex-Colonial Territories the lump sum compensation for expatriate civil servants given on change of status has been wholly paid by means of a direct or indirect grant from the Treasury of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maudling: There are no ex-Colonial Territories where the payment of compensation for expatriate civil servants has been met directly by grant from the United Kingdom Treasury. To the extent to which we pay any form of grant to a Colonial or ex-Colonial Territory it can be said that we are helping that Territory indirectly to finance any liability it may be under to pay such compensation.

Mr. Tilney: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this establishes a

relationship, albeit an interim one, between employment by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and Her Majesty's Government overseas?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think so. I think that there is a distinction between people recruited by the Secretary of State for service in the Colonial Service generally and those locally recruited, but if we are thinking of a grant in aid to a Territory, then clearly it must help with its various liabilities.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that on future occasions like this Her Majesty's Government are as generous as possible in giving help in this respect? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to maintain the good will of ex-colonial servants and equally important not to place an unfair burden of compensation on countries with highly under-developed economies?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir, I accept that. What we have done in these matters fully meets those criteria.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

General Election

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that all the political parties in Malta, including those that gave evidence to the Blood Commission, have now indicated their opposition to the new Constitution, and that this may lead to a partial or a complete boycott of the General Election in February; and if he will take steps to meet the representatives of the main parties with a view to arriving at a mutual understanding before the election.

Mr. Maudling: I would refer the hon. Member to the Reply I gave him on 23rd November, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Awbery: I am well aware of the reply that was given on a previous occasion. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position is getting very serious and that the General Election is to take place in February and it is far better to get the co-operation of political parties in Malta before the election takes place than to have them boycott it?


Will he make another approach with a view to avoiding the possibility of a boycott?

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. As I understand, both the Progressive Constitutional Party and the Nationalist Party have said that they will contest the General Election and the only major party that has not yet committed itself is the Malta Labour Party.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave misgiving in the major parties in Malta about participation in the election as long as Her Majesty's Government fail to make clear whether or not they would favour an ultimate move towards self-determination? Cannot Her Majesty's Government give the Maltese people some assurance on this point before the election campaign goes further?

Mr. Maudling: We have made it clear that we do not regard this present stage of development in Malta as the final stage, but I see no reason why we should go beyond that to enable parties to take part in the election. I hope that they will take part.

Sir P. Agnew: Would it not be best if the political parties exercise such democratic rights as the new Constitution will give them as the best way of extending their position and advancing it if possible towards a later Constitution when they can qualify for it?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. I am sure that that is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any indication that the major political parties in Malta are willing to take part in the election proposed to be held in February; by what date he will have to be informed of their willingness to take part, if this election is to be held at all; and what preparations he is making to ensure that it can be conducted fairly.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. No party need make known its intention of contesting the elections until nomination of candidates is called for. The writ for elections has not yet been issued. I am satisfied that the arrangements made under the electoral legislation will ensure fair conduct of the elections.

Mr. Driberg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is much more likely to get the participation of all parties, which, presumably, he wants, in order to ensure a representative result, if he would only make a positive affirmation on the right of the Maltese people to self-determination, while reserving the timing of it until after the election, instead of merely repeating the negative and vague formula which he has repeated again today? Will he seriously consider this, and also the possibility of ensuring fair elections, which are by no means sure, by sending out a supervisory commission or something of that kind?

Mr. Maudling: On the first point, I can only repeat what I said in reply to an earlier supplementary question. I do not see why our present position on further constitutional developments should inhibit any party from contesting the election under the new Constitution, which is a considerable advance on what has gone before. I have discussed very closely with the Governor the arrangements for ensuring fair elections. I am concerned about this, but I think that in practice the arrangements will work well.

Mr. Teeling: My right hon. Friend is asking for fifty candidates from each party. Does not he feel that that will be far more than most of them can provide, and is not that, possibly, a reason why they cannot make up their minds?

Mr. Maudling: This is a point which has been raised. I understand there is no local government at the moment in Malta, and it is therefore necessary to have a fairly large body in the Legislature itself.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have already been some instances of violence in the pre-election period, and that the line being taken by the Roman Catholic hierarchy on the island is one which we in this country would certainly regard as illicit interference with the freedom of the elections? In view of this fact, and the strong feelings about it in many sections of the Maltese population, will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider sending out some sort of official mission to observe the election during the next two months, so that justice can not only be


done but can be seen to be done by all concerned?

Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Member has evidence of this type of activity which is likely to lead to unfairness in the elections, I should be grateful if he will send it to me, and I will consider it.

European Economic Community (Negotiations)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to protect the interests of Malta in any Common Market discussions; and what steps are being taken to obtain the views of Maltese business men on this subject and to keep them informed of progress in the matter.

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in his statement to the representatives of the Six Member Governments on 10th October suggested that our dependent territories should be given the opportunity if they so wish to enter into association with the Community on the same terms as those which will in future be available to the present associated overseas countries and territories. In this or other ways it is hoped to protect the vital interests of the dependent territories. The Maltese Government has been consulted and is kept informed of developments. But in view of the confidential nature of the negotiations it is not possible either in Malta or elsewhere to keep business men informed of details of the negotiations.

Mr. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have just come back from Malta and that when he refers to the Malta Government that does not include any Maltese? Does he realise that the vast majority of the people who are interested in Malta are not being told anything about it, especially those politicians and leaders of parties who will be fighting a General Election next February? Does he not think that the Colonial Secretary there, or whoever is responsible, should take the trouble to keep the Maltese informed and not just the Government of Malta?

Mr. Maudling: That is another argument for having a General Election in Malta as soon as possible and getting a Government established.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the terms of the Rome Treaty, if we succeed in entering the Common Market, we shall be obliged to allow Sicilians into this country free of control, whereas, under the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, the Government will be compelled to institute control over Maltese immigration? As Secretary of State for the Colonies, is he not ashamed of that situation?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman is better aware of both the principles and the practice of the Treaty of Rome than would be implied from that supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA AND KENYA

Secretary of State's Visit

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his official visit to Northern Rhodesia and Kenya.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his discussions with political leaders in Northern Rhodesia regarding the new Constitution.

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he will make a statement on the proposed constitutional changes for Northern Rhodesia following his recent visit to Central Africa:
(2) if he will make a statement on his discussions in Salisbury with Sir Roy Welensky.

Mr. Maudling: During my visit to Northern Rhodesia I had confidential talks about the Constitution with the Governor, all political parties and representatives of the chiefs. I am not yet ready to communicate any conclusions to the House but I recognise the need for an early decision, which was impressed on me from all quarters in the Territory.
I naturally took the opportunity in Salisbury to have a personal talk with the Federal Prime Minister, in which we reviewed current problems.
I made a statement at the conclusion of my visit to Kenya and I will with permission circulate a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Brockway: Whilst appreciating the difficulties, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not appreciate that we are in the position that we shall be adjourning shortly until towards the end of January and that it is very important that any statement which he makes should be open to discussion in the House and, on the other hand, it is urgent that he should make that statement? In view of these facts, is it not possible before the House adjourns at the end of this week that some statement should be made about this grave situation in Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member has stated my difficulties very fairly. It is not possible to make a statement in the course of the next two or three days, but without trespassing on the ground of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I can say that it is quite clear that on a matter of such great importance the House will wish to have a discussion at the appropriate time.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman be the new broom which we all hope he is? Will he sweep away the equivocations, evasions and manœuvres of the past? When he brings in the new Constitution for Northern Rhodesia, will he be guided by the principle in the Monckton Commission's Report, namely, that the will of the majority must prevail?

Mr. Maudling: I have been described as many things but not before, I think, as a new broom.

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously well aware of the urgency with which this matter is regarded in Northern Rhodesia. May I remind him that if he waits until after the Recess almost a year will have passed since his predecessor made proposals none of which has yet been implemented in Northern Rhodesia? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the possibility of making a statement before the House rises?

Mr. Maudling: I should have liked to have made a statement but it is impossible in the time available. It is more important to get it right than to get it immediately.

Following is the statement:
I came to Kenya as soon as possible after my appointment as Colonial Secretary in order to learn at first hand about the problems facing your country. I am very grateful for all the advice and help which I have been given from so many quarters and for the hospitality and friendliness which I have received on all sides.
I am quite convinced that Kenya now stands at a crossroads. If all goes well the prospects for this great country are exciting and almost boundless, but if things do not go well in the near future, there are very real dangers indeed to everyone of whatever race who lives here. The political problems that face Kenya must be solved and solved soon if Kenya's economy, already sadly strained by natural disasters and flagging confidence, is not to be irreparably damaged.
In tackling these problems I accept that a great responsibility lies upon the British Government, but the responsibility that rests upon the politicians of all parties in Kenya is even greater and more direct. You hold your own future in your hands.
The great danger I see is fear; fear of discrimination, fear of intimidation, fear of exploitation. I have seen enough to be convinced that there is truth underlying these fears. No country can prosper in these circumstances. What Kenya needs is confidence, calm and common sense, an end to inflammatory speeches, and above all, an end to intimidation and violence. I call solemnly upon the leaders of the political parties to do all in their power to bring this about. If they do not do so, they will be failing in their duty to Kenya.
There is to be a Constitutional Conference in London next February at which I hope we shall be able to agree on the future Constitution of Kenya. From discussions I have held, I am satisfied that there is more common ground between the main parties than might appear on the surface. There must clearly be a stable and competent Central Government, for without it there cannot be a Kenya nation. But more than this is clearly needed. If the rights of individuals are to be safeguarded, and if there is to be confidence that they will be, Kenya will need in addition other governing authorities with their own defined rights which do not derive from the Central Government, but are entrenched and written into the Constitution; and the Constitution must be one that cannot be so changed that the purposes agreed at the Constitutional Conference are frustrated. There must also be an independent judiciary.
I hope the discussions about the Constitution can concentrate from now on on the facts rather than on an exchange of slogans. What we must determine is the nature and composition of the Central Government, the nature, composition and powers of other governing authorities, the protection of individual rights, including land titles and property rights, and the means whereby the stability of the Constitution may be secured, and law and order, which is absolutely fundamental to the happiness of Kenya, firmly preserved.
Many races have made their contribution to Kenya and the Kenyans of today have their


origins in a dozen different countries. I have seen the vital contributions that Europeans and Asians have made, and are making, to the economy of Kenya, and I have seen with admiration the work that has been done by a devoted public service. Kenya needs the brains, devotion, and capital of all its peoples. This calls for a society and an economy without discrimination of race, creed or colour where individual rights are firmly recognised and maintained.
I believe that this is the objective of all political parties and it is this belief that gives me confidence in the future of Kenya.
My other reason for confidence is this. Kenya has in recent months faced an unprecedented series of natural disasters, yet by the magnificent efforts of the Government, the Services and many private citizens, these disasters are being overcome. We in Britain admire and salute your achievements.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Paramount Chief Chitimukulu (Representations)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations on the subject of terrorism and intimidation were made by Chief Chitimukulu on the occasion of the Governor-General's recent visit to Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Maudling: In receiving the Governor-General, Paramount Chief Chitimukulu welcomed him as a friend at a time when, as he said, the native authorities had just overcome severe difficulties and strain imposed on them by the activities of the United National Independence Party.

Mr. Turton: Could my right hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to protect this tribe from intimidation and terrorism by the U.N.I.P. of which Chief Chitimukulu complained?

Mr. Maudling: The security service in Northern Rhodesia has done a fine job indeed in restoring law and order and in dealing effectively with these difficulties.

Mr. Brockway: Would not the right hon. Gentleman also pay some tribute to the influence that Mr. Kenneth Kaunda has had in restraining any signs of violence which there may have been in Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Maudling: The Question referred to what the Paramount Chief said on a

particular occasion. I think that I have already referred in the House to the appeal which Mr. Kaunda made on the question of violence.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Constitutional Reform

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his proposals for constitutional reform in Hong Kong.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: Has the right hon. Gentleman received, as I hope he has, and has he read the suggestions and proposals which have been put forward by the United Nations Association of Hong Kong, which is under the patronage of Sir Robert Black, the Governor of the Colony? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Hong Kong still operates largely under war-time regulations and is in effect a police State? Does he think that a good advertisement for Britain? Would he not like to use his new broom to sweep away these regulations and give these people greater control over their own internal affairs?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot recall the representations to which the hon. Member refers, but I will look them up. Generally speaking, I should have thought that the constitutional position of Hong Kong was fairly satisfactory and that the Colony on the whole was making considerable progress.

Mr. Dance: Would my right hon. Friend agree that we have an excellent administration at present in Hong Kong and that, with all the refugees coming over, those concerned are doing wonderful work under great difficulties in putting people into new homes and houses? Cannot we send them a message saying, "Thank you for what you are doing?"

Mr. Maudling: I entirely agree.

Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that those of us who have seen something of what is going on in Hong Kong disagree violently with what the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) has just said? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that a


great many people in Hong Kong support the view that we take that the time has now arrived when this mild demand for a measure of internal control over their own affairs which is growing in Hong Kong should be met? Will the right hon. Gentleman do one little thing and consider this more than he has done?

Mr. Maudling: I accept that there are differences in this House but, on the whole, I am inclined to accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance).

Mr. Rhodes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is thought in some parts of the country that there is far too good a Government in Hong Kong for our own peace of mind in the industries in the North?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRISTAN DA CUNHA

Evacuees

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to obtain the opinion of welfare workers and the people from Tristan da Cunha on a suitable place where they can settle down as a community; and if he will give an assurance that no steps will be taken about a place without full consultation with these people, and that in the meantime sufficient State funds will be made available to them to obtain a reasonable measure of comfort.

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that the refugees from Tristan da Cunha are in need of help; and what steps he has taken to bring some of the necessities, as well as the comforts, of life to these people;
(2) what steps he is taking to provide good housing for the refugees from Tristan da Cunha; and if he will investigate the conditions under which they are living at present.

Mr. Maudling: I am happy to be able to state that some fifty married quarters at the former R.A.F. Station at Calshot have been offered by the Air Ministry for the use of the Tristan islanders. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air for

making it possible to meet the needs of the islanders in this way. Arrangements will have to be made for the furnishing of the houses, and the move to Calshot should be completed well before the end of January. The other married quarters will be occupied by R.A.F. families.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am very glad that he is carrying out his promise, made a long time ago, to look after these people while they were in this country? However, is he aware that since putting down this Question I have been assured that these people cannot settle in this country because of the climate and other circumstances? Will he make a survey of the island again to see whether it is possible for these people to go back to their own homes and rehabilitate themselves in their own places rather than in this country?

Mr. Maudling: There is a later Question about the state of affairs in the island itself. This accommodation has been studied by the Administrator, the parson, some of the islanders and my own officials, and they are all satisfied that, with the employment prospects and the sea nearby, it represents a satisfactory permanent arrangement.

Sir B. Janner: Why has it taken all this time to arrange for suitable accommodation for these people? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Rev. Philip Lindsay, who was a missionary in Tristan, was horrified when he went to see the conditions under which these people were living? Will the right hon. Gentleman also answer that part of my Question in which I ask what is being done about supplying suitable funds to these people to meet their needs? Is he aware that a prescription was given to one person who had to travel three miles to get it dispensed? What is he doing about that sort of thing?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman's question about an individual prescription is rather too detailed for him to expect me to answer it without notice. We have made considerable provision for these people in this country. This is a unique problem. Their resistance to disease and their adaptation to conditions in a modern industrial community are problems which we have to


look at very carefully, not rushing into decisions which would be foolish and not in the interests of the islanders.

Mr. G. Brown: As I was there this morning seeing these excellent people, will the right hon. Gentleman take from the House a message of appreciation to the Administrator, the padre, and the volunteers of the W.V.S. and the Red Cross for the obviously magnificent job which has been done? As in many outstanding respects—I will not detail them now—the present quarters are clearly inadequate, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that they get houses more suitable for our climate as soon before the end of January as he can possibly arrange? Can he assure us that the number of fifty married quarters he has talked about means that there are adequate resources for the Tristan da Cunhans currently at Merstham?

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I entirely agree with his first remarks. We will certainly make these accommodation arrangements as fast as we can, but it is my impression that they should be satisfactory for all the islanders.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what responsibility he exercises for the well-being of the evacuees from Tristan da Cunha; whether they have settled down in their new environment; if any attempt has been or will be made to salvage any of their small possessions left on the island; whether the volcanic or seismic disturbances have abated; and whether the evacuees will be permitted to return to the island when it is considered that the phase of disturbance has passed and volcanic recurrence is unlikely.

Mr. Maudling: I am deeply conscious of my responsibilities for the Tristanians' welfare. I would say that in the circumstances they have settled remarkably well in their temporary home at Pendell Camp, and most of the able-bodied men and young women are out at work. It may be possible to recover a few of the possessions which could not be retrieved by H.M.S. "Leopard" if an expedition organised by the Royal Society visits the island in the New Year. H.M.S. "Jaguar", which made a complete circuit of Tristan on 16th December, reported that volcanic activity continues,

and I should doubt if it will ever be safe for the islanders to return.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House has deep sympathy with these islanders and desires every effort to be made on their behalf? Do the evacuees have some kind of committee on which they can discuss their affairs and make formal representations to the right hon. Gentleman, or elsewhere? Does he not agree that that is the best procedure they can adopt at this juncture, especially in view of the possibility of never going back to their old homes?

Mr. Maudling: I doubt whether a committee is needed for a small community of this kind, whose members have known each other for many years. I am sure that the established leaders, the Administrator and the padre, and so on, who speak for them can speak for them in full knowledge of their wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Trinidad and Windward and Leeward Islands

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consultations he is planning with the Governments of Trinidad and the Windward and Leeward Islands regarding a future form of association between their Territories.

Mr. Maudling: I intend to visit Port-of-Spain and stay with the Governor-General in mid-January.
During my stay, I shall have talks with West Indian Government leaders about the current situation.

Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his announcement and wish him well in these talks, because of the urgency of the problems which are faced, especially in the smaller islands?

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. These are both urgent and tangled problems.

Economic Assistance

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to increase financial


assistance to West Indies Territories in view of their economic difficulties.

Mr. Maudling: We are already contributing to the needs of the West Indies for economic assistance at the rate of about £5 million a year in Colonial Development and Welfare and grant-in-aid. I regret that I see no possibility at present of increasing this level of assistance.

Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most useful ways in which we have given economic aid to the West Indies in the past has been by helping to absorb its surplus population? Is he aware that the effect of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill will be greatly to increase the economic difficulties of those islands? Will he not, therefore, ensure that some of the damage of that Bill is offset by giving more generous aid to these West Indian Territories?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that we can assess the effect of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill until we see how it works in practice. The Question referred to financial assistance and, in view of our current financial circumstances and balance of payments position, it is clear that we cannot increase the amount of financial assistance which we are giving.

Sir C. Osborne: As the income per capita in the West Indies is at least five times greater than that of India and Pakistan, will my right hon. Friend see that the West Indies do not get an advantage over other members of the Commonwealth? Will he also bear in mind that there is a limit to what this country can do for overseas Territories?

Mr. Maudling: Average figures of that kind can be a little misleading. One has to look at the exact situation in every Territory. The aid we are providing now is on a commendable scale. We all wish that it would be more, but in present circumstances an increase would not be justified.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the West Indies as a whole buys about £60 million worth of British goods a year, and will he do everything he can to assist these splendid people and give them all the encouragement possible?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Political Independence

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has made to the request of Dr. Cheddi Jagan, Prime Minister of British Guiana, for the naming of a date for the political independence of that territory.

Mr. Maudling: I informed Dr. Jagan on 14th December that I had taken note of the resolution passed by the British Guiana Legislature asking me to fix a date for independence during 1962. I reminded him of the formula on independence which had been agreed at the Constitutional Conference in 1960. I recognised that the Legislature's resolution was, however, a new development. I informed him that I therefore proposed to consult my colleagues on his representations, and hoped to be able to let him know the decision of Her Majesty's Government early in the New Year.

Mr. Brockway: While appreciating much in that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that a very critical situation is again developing in British Guiana? Is it not a fact that Dr. Jagan, since he has been a Minister, has acted with considerable restraint and with considerable constructive statesmanship? Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the Foreign Office to ask it if it will reverse its policy at the United Nations, which, even yesterday, opposed Mr. Cheddi Jagan being heard by the Trusteeship Committee?

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. I cannot accept that a critical situation, in any sense of the word, exists in British Guiana. I have already explained the position, and it seems to me to be reasonable that I should have a chance to consider any representations put to me. So far as the United Nations is concerned, we do not consider this matter in any sense to be within the competence of the United Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Bushy Park, Teddington (Indian Hemp)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that Indian hemp is being grown in


Bushy Park, Teddington, collected by members of the public, manufactured into cigarettes and sold to young people; and what steps he is taking to prohibit the growing of such plants.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): The allegation that Indian hemp was grown in Bushy Park has been thoroughly investigated by the police and by my Department, and has not been substantiated. The staff responsible for the Royal Parks are aware of the danger of this plant.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Bushy would be shocked if the well-cultivated soil of Bushy Park were used for this purpose, as it was reported in court that students are growing Indian hemp, smoking themselves silly and selling cigarettes in Kingston Market?

Lord John Hope: There is no evidence that this plant has been found anywhere in Bushy Park. There was a wild plant found in the Green Park some time ago. That was immediately destroyed, and I hope that if any hon. Members find any others they will let me know at once.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), in this as in other matters, is in a perpetual fog? Will he take steps—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whatever the degree of the fog, the Minister cannot be responsible for it.

Palace of Westminster (Annunciator)

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Minister of Works at what date an annunciator was installed in the rooms, on the Ministerial Floor of this House, of the Leader of the House; and what was the cost.

Lord John Hope: This annunciator was installed on 21st October, at a cost of £163.

Mr. Pannell: Is the Minister aware that this is very much cheaper than we thought it would be? Has he yet had an application from the Home Secretary to put it back in the room from which it

originally came, on the ground that the Home Secretary demonstrated so clearly in the incident of the Mace that he is still the best Leader of the House we have got?

Lord John Hope: I think that is a question of opinion, and far from the Question on the Order Paper.

Brick Supplies, Birmingham

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that due to the Shortage of bricks in Birmingham one housing project has been held up for six months, and that one builder has had to dismiss half his bricklayers; and what action he proposes to take to remedy this shortage.

Lord John Hope: I understand that in Birmingham two housing schemes were delayed earlier this year, but that bricks are now available for both.

Mr. Yates: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that a supplier of large quantities of bricks to Birmingham has said that there will be many months' delay? Is he aware that there are two schemes which have had over four months' delay, and will he undertake to see that Birmingham can have a greater degree of security in obtaining the materials necessary to build the houses which it so badly needs?

Lord John Hope: These schemes are all right now. I cannot find any evidence of the dismissal of half the bricklayers employed by any firm, and if the hon. Gentleman can let me know about it, I will look into that case again. It is up to those who want bricks to order them in plenty of time, and when that is done, there is very little difficulty.

Industrial Monuments

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Works what progress he has made with the scheme to conserve machinery and industrial buildings of outstanding historical interest.

Lord John Hope: The position is still as described in the Answer I gave to the hon. Member on 18th July. The Council for British Archaeology is considering what can be done to speed up work on this survey.

Mr. Boyden: Is the Minister aware that this has been hanging on now for about two years? Could he not take a little more interest in this matter and get some material so that he can set up a new scheme to help to preserve these monuments?

Lord John Hope: I do not want to do anything to anticipate the report. All I can say is that those concerned will notice that this Question has been put down by the hon. Member.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country has been very backward in making plans to preserve many of the most remarkable relics of early industrial development, such as splendid architectural works in the form of old warehouses, as well as old machines, old steam-engines, and so on, that are now being destroyed fairly quickly? Would it not be a thousand pities if this, the pioneer industrial country, did not preserve its most prominent monuments?

Lord John Hope: I think there is a lot in that.

Mr. Bence: Is the Minister aware that there are many others in this country who believe that there are far too many out-dated machines and far too many out-dated directors of machines?

Broad Sanctuary, Westminster (Architectural Competition)

Sir H. Kerr: asked the Minister of Works whether he has received the award of the assessors for the architectural competition for the Broad Sanctuary site, Westminster.

Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. Of the sixty-five entries submitted, the assessors have placed first the design prepared by Mr. William Whitfield.
The winning design and all the other entries will be on public exhibition in the Air Ministry Hall, Whitehall, from Wednesday to Friday this week and from Wednesday to Friday next week.

Office and Council House Building

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Works if he will state the increase in office, shop and warehouse

building in the last twelve months compared with seven years ago, and the decrease in council house building in the same periods.

Lord John Hope: Figures for shops and warehouses are not available. Public authority housing has fallen from about £440 million in 1954 to about £300 million in 1961 at current prices for each date. The figure for offices in 1954 was about £34 million and although detailed statistics are no longer collected it is estimated that the present figure may be of the order of £110 million.

Mr. Allaun: Does not this mean that the Government's policy has slashed council house building at the very time when it has trebled office building? Which should have priority? Does the Minister think that Shell-Mex should have two enormous office blocks overlooking the Thames when thousands of families cannot even get a single room?

Lord John Hope: I think the real point is that no less than 26 per cent. of the whole of the construction work now going on is on housing.

Mr. Costain: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that private house building during the same period has doubled, and, further, that the people employed on office blocks would not necessarily have gone into house building if released; for instance, steel erectors?

Lord John Hope: I certainly agree that private housing has very much played its part in the good figures now being shown.

Palace of Westminster (Accommodation)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Works when he hopes to start work on the provision of extra accommodation for hon. Members and their secretaries under the roof of the Palace of Westminster.

Lord John Hope: I cannot forecast the date, but it will be as soon as circumstances permit.

Mrs. Castle: But is the Minister aware that this delay is quite intolerable? Is he aware that this extra accommodation is urgently needed to relieve the overcrowded and unsatisfactory conditions


in which Members of this House, their secretaries, and officials of the House are having to work? Is it not bad enough for hon. Members to have to endure a pay pause without having an efficiency pause imposed on them as well?

Lord John Hope: I should like to say two things in answer to that. First, that I believe that the House as a whole would not prefer that we put improvements For ourselves first, although naturally, as I agreed, we want this to be done when it is time to do it. Secondly, the more the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends help outside this House, the quicker we may be able to to do this. I hope that the hon. Lady will not go on making speeches encouraging people to break up the efforts to get this country's economy going properly.

Mr. C. Pannell: rose—

Mr. S. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Charles Pannell.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker: I called Mr. Charles Pannell.

Mr. C. Pannell: Before I put my supplementary question, may I put a point of order to you, Mr. Speaker? Bearing in mind the rebuke you gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) for introducing the sort of matter which he did into a supplementary question, may I with respect ask you whether the same treatment might be handed out to the Minister for his completely unmerited rebuke to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker: To be completely frank with the House and the hon. Member, I did not hear what the Minister said at that point, so I cannot help myself.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that you were not able to hear the remarks which the Minister shouted at the top of his voice. What they amounted to, in the hearing of most of us, was a really savage attack on my hon. Friend for her policies and alleged actions in the country, to which, by the nature of the proceedings now before the House,

she could not possibly have any opportunity whatever to reply, or from which she could not possibly defend herself at Question Time. I submit to you that that is a grave abuse of the Minister's position, and that he ought to withdraw and apologise.

Lord John Hope: I have nothing to withdraw. I was referring—

Mr. S. Silverman: It does not matter to what the noble Lord was referring.

Lord John Hope: I was referring to the speeches the hon. Lady made last month when she urged the Trades Union Congress—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Various things were happening. One of them was that I was trying to find out what it was the Minister had said out of which this arose. At that point the Minister rose to do something: I do not know what. I do not know whether he rose to a point of order. If he did not, the present position is that a point of order has been addressed to me by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I do not think that there is any breach of order. I do not think that I can say anything else now.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. Is it not quite clear from what the Minister has just done that, whether he was in order or not before, he is clearly out of order now by his own confession? What he had in mind, and what he is now saying, has no relevance to the Question asked by my hon. Friend, and he is merely using the opportunity created by this point of order to repeat and aggravate his offence. I think that he ought to be called upon, and I respectfully suggest that he should be, to withdraw it, apologise, and undertake not to repeat it.

Mr. Speaker: The right form of the rule is that the answer must relate to the problem put in the Question. In so far as the Minister went outside that, he should in fact withdraw it in relation to Question Time. I gather that what he was saying was something in relation to the hon. Lady's treatment of Government policies in the country, or something of that sort.

Hon. Member: Withdraw.

Lord John Hope: Mr. Speaker, if you instruct me to do so, I withdraw unreservedly. I shall certainly do so. What I should like to explain—and what I have not been able to do up to now—is that the hon. Lady—and she has not asked me to withdraw—was criticising Her Majesty's Government for not getting on with the—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clearly right that I should hear what the Minister is try to tell me.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Is it not perfectly and absolutely clear to us that what the Minister has now commenced to do is to repeat his offence for a third time?

Mr. Speaker: It is not clear to me what the Minister is doing at the moment. I am trying to hear what he is explaining to me.

Lord John Hope: As I was endeavouring to say, the hon. Lady criticised Her Majesty's Government for not continuing this scheme, and implied that their policy was to blame. I simply said that I hoped the hon. Lady would do what should could to help, and not encourage those outside to do what she was purported to have said in a speech when she urged the Trades Union Congress to go in—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Silverman: Get back to the gutter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In going beyond the subject matter of the Question, the Minister was at fault in answering a question, and I am obliged to him for saying that he will withdraw that part of what he said.

Lord John Hope: In view of what you say, Mr. Speaker, of course I do so unreservedly.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) address a highly approbrious remark to my noble Friend. It was distinctly heard by all my hon. Friends.

Mr. Lipton: What was it?

Mr. Nabarro: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what it was. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne told my noble Friend to get back to the gutter. Would it be in order for him to be requested to withdraw such a disgraceful remark?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that all hon. Members will make use only of language proper in this House, and I invite the hon. Member, if he used that expression, to withdraw it.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am very glad to withdraw the invitation if the Minister does not like it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (TELEVISION APPEARANCES)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister to what extent, excluding party political broadcasts, he controls the number and frequency of appearances by Ministers of the Crown in television programmes.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With rare exceptions, Ministers of the Crown appear on television only at the invitation of the broadcasting authorities.

Mr. Lipton: Does the Prime Minister ever watch this visual cavalcade of Ministers studiously evading the simplest question in the course of television interviews? We are used to that sort of thing at Question Time in the House, but has anyone told the Prime Minister that it comes as a great shock to the general public to see Ministers behave like that on the television screens?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that Ministers will be very grateful for the hon. Member's advice.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOA

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the official representations he has received from Mr. Nehru concerning the situation in Goa.

The Prime Minister: We have naturally exchanged messages with the Indian Government, but I do not intend to publish them.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the Prime Minister restrain his delight because he thinks that he has caught out somebody much more virtuous than himself at doing something naughty, and ask himself and the Government to consider the facts? Does not he know that a Portuguese census in 1950 showed only 800 Europeans as living in Goa, who were transient Portuguese administrators, and 316 people of mixed descent, the rest of the 650,000 being officially described as Indians? Does not the Prime Minister know that for fourteen years the Indians have tried to get Portugal to negotiate on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I must ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker. I believe that I am the only person in the House of Commons who thinks that India is right in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will have my protection, but I hope that he will bear in mind our rule, whereby questions designed to give information are out of order.

Mr. Wyatt: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to extract information from the Prime Minister, and I was asking whether or not he knew that for fourteen years the Indian Government have tried without success to negotiate on this matter with Portugal, during which time 800 European administrators have been sitting on the heads of 650,000 Indians? Does not the Prime Minister also know that resolution after resolution at the United Nations has called upon the Portuguese to give information about Goa, which they have refused. Why does he think that it would have been any good if India had taken this matter to the United Nations, as Portugal refused to allow—

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order. Is it not intolerable that an hon. Member who has ample opportunity to make his views known on other media than Question Time in the House should take up so much of our time making speeches now?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The requirement is that supplementary questions should be related to the Answer previously given, which was that the reply was confidential. We seem to be getting a long way from the Question.

Mr. Wyatt: I apologise for the interruptions, Mr. Speaker. I believe that it has been a tradition of the House, for at least as long as the occupation of Goa by Portugal, that a Member may put an unpopular point and not be shouted down. I ask the Prime Minister why he thinks that India would have been successful in putting this issue at United Nations, since Portugal refused to allow a United Nations Commission even to enter Angola to investigate the situation there. Finally—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has had repeated opportunities to get into order. I regard his supplementary question now as wholly out of order. Mr. Allaun. Question No. Q3.

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. You may not like my Question, Mr. Speaker, but surely I am entitled to an answer. You have called somebody else, thus protecting the Prime Minister from answering on this very important question.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member desires to assert that what the Chair rules is in some way related to the Chair's likes or dislikes, or to assert that the Chair is misconducting itself in some way, he must put himself in order. He cannot say these things now.

Mr. Wyatt: I apologise if I have seemed to be rude to you, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully say that I am surely entitled to an answer from the Prime Minister on this very important matter. Surely it is reasonable for him to give an answer to those supplementary questions that I have been allowed to put, before you move to the next Question.

Mr. Speaker: I tried hard to get the hon. Member to put himself in order, but he would not, and I was finally compelled to rule his question out of order. There is no entitlement to an answer to a question which is out of order. Mr. Allaun.

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. I think that the Prime Minister wishes to give some answer—because this is a very serious matter. Finally, I should like to ask him—

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to remember the circumstances in which we are. Mr. Allaun.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of order, and on the subject of Goa—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The present position is that I have called the next Question.

Later—

Sir T. Moore: Would you consider, in your capacity as Speaker and as our spokesman, conveying to the Speaker of the Indian Assembly our utter abhorrence of the action that has been taken by Mr. Nehru and his Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The position is that I am the servant of the House. I would convey messages on behalf of the House to other people only if so instructed by the House.

Sir T. Moore: May I ask whether the House will support me?

Mr. Speaker: I expect that the House would require the hon. Member to table an appropriate Motion.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if he will state the nature of his reply to the letter from the Salford, Swinton, Pendlebury and Pendleton Methodist Circuit urging the Government to withdraw the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill.

The Prime Minister: The letter to which the Question refers covered a resolution passed by the Salford Circuit of the Methodist Church. The Secretary of the Circuit was informed, in a reply sent on my behalf, that the terms of the resolution had been noted.

Mr. Allaun: Does not the Prime Minister, in his heart, admit the truth of the circuit's charge that this is a colour discrimination Bill, especially since, under Common Market conditions, aliens would be admitted? Should not the Minister have added a postscript saying, "I am sorry I ever went ahead with the wretched thing"?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As a matter of courtesy I had the letter acknowledged. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is arranging to receive a deputation from

the Methodist Christian Citizenship, and no doubt it will be received in the usual way.

Mr. Gaitskell: Since no further progress is being made with the Bill until the end of January, does not this provide an excellent opportunity for the Government to have second thoughts on the matter? Will the Prime Minister consider arranging for further consultations with the Commonwealth countries especially affected during the Christmas Recess?

The Prime Minister: I will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I do not see how progress can be made between now and the end of January, because the House will not be sitting.

Mr. Hilton: Will not the Prime Minister admit that he has had letters not only from Methodists in Salford but from Methodists all over the country—especially from Norfolk—condemning this iniquitous Bill? Will not he give sympathetic consideration to the matter and do as he has been asked to do by Methodists in this country, namely, withdraw the Bill?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As the Bill is being debated at considerable length in the House, I thought it necessary, in answering the Question, only to give the hon. Member the information he has asked for.

Sir C. Osborne: Since the vast majority of people in this country support the Bill, will my right hon. Friend continue with it and expedite its progress as soon as we return after the Recess?

The Prime Minister: All that I am now discussing is what should be the proper courtesies in answering a letter or receiving a deputation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that he will be seeing Mr. Kennedy, who is an immigrant Irishman to the United States? How will he explain this to Mr. Kennedy?

The Prime Minister: Just as I understand that the hon. Member is an immigrant Welshman to Scotland, and I am immigrant Scotsman to England. It all comes out all right.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Farr.

Mr. Hector Hughes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) rise to a point of order?

Mr. Hector Hughes: I understood, Mr. Speaker, that you were still allowing supplementary questions on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. May I ask a supplementary question on that subject?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Shearsby

Mr. Farr: asked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange for a post office to be established in Shearsby once more.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): My right hon. Friend is sorry that he would not be justified in doing as my hon. Friend asks.

DECIMAL CURRENCY

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Wing Commander Bullus: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on the question of decimalisation of currency.

Mr. J. WELLS: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on the introduction into this country of a decimal currency.

Mr. PROUDFOOT: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make his promised statement on decimal coinage.

Mr. DU CANN: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make his promised statement upon the proposal to introduce a decimal currency system.

The Chancellor the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): As I have already informed the House, the Government have been considering this question in the light of the public interest shown in it, particularly following the Joint

Report of the Committees of the British Association and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
The Government's view is that real advantage would follow from adopting a decimal currency. At the same time, it is clear that, in view of the widespread use of accounting and other monetary machinery, the transitional cost would be substantial. It should, however, be possible to limit this cost, both by the choice of the size of the new units to be adopted and by careful timing of the changeover. Before reaching a final decision, therefore, the Government consider that there should be a full-scale investigation into the best form of decimal currency, the steps by which the change could be brought about, and the cost of the changeover to the economy as a whole.
The Government have accordingly decided to set up a Committee of Inquiry whose terms of reference will be:
(a) To advise on the most convenient and practical form which a decimal currency might take, including the major and minor units to be adopted.
(b) To advise on the timing and phasing of the changeover best calculated to minimise the cost.
(c) To estimate the probable amount and incidence of the cost to the economy of proposals based on (a) and (b).
I am glad to say that Lord Halsbury has accepted my invitation to be Chairman of the Committee. I shall announce the names of the other members early in the New Year.
The Government are very conscious of the importance of reaching firm decisions in this matter as soon as possible. They will accordingly discuss with the Chairman ways and means by which the Committee may be enabled to make rapid progress with their work.
The other Commonwealth Governments have been informed of our proposals.

Wing Commander Bullus: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that purposeful reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that many of us have an open mind on this question, but that we recognise that it would be logical to make a change which must


eventually come? May I further ask him how long it is expected that this Committee will take to report?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the point made by my hon. Friend in the first part of that supplementary question. I certainly would hope that the Committee's report would be available during 1962.

Mr. Proudfoot: Does my right hon. and learned Friend fully appreciate the mounting cost of delay? Will he, to save time, adopt the Bill which stands in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends? Will he give us the Money Resolution that it may need?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that there are very important practical matters to be considered in this connection. Until there has been a further examination of these matters, it is difficult to decide finally whether to proceed with that Bill or to adopt the course of conduct which I advise.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear whether or not the Government have made a decision in principle in this matter? Is it not the case that the terms of reference of this Committee—which seems quite a sensible idea—seem to suggest that the decision has already been taken? Will he clear this point up?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in noting that the Committee is not being asked to consider the question of "whether", but the question of "how". I say quite frankly that, should its recommendations, or the results of its investigations, appear to present very grave financial and other difficulties, the Government would have to reconsider the question of "whether"; but the Committee is being asked to consider not "whether", but methods.

Mr. Gaitskell: Have the Government decided that we will have a decimal coinage unless the difficulties are overwhelming? Has a decision been taken in that sense?

Mr. Lloyd: That is so. As I have said, the Government's view is that real advantage would follow from the adop

tion of a decimal currency, but that the matter must depend a little upon the cost and other relevant considerations. In the light of the findings of the Committee, we will make the final decision. It is a very rational and reasonable approach.

Mr. J. Wells: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his assurance that the Committee will report quickly, may I ask him for a further assurance that there will be quick action following the Committee's report? Will the Committee have its attention drawn to the excellent system propounded in a letter in The Times today by Mr. D. M. Livingstone?

Mr. Lloyd: I have noted what was said in The Times today. I can promise a quick decision. Whether it will be quickly implemented or not will depend upon the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr. du Cann: While congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on this statement—it is a great stop, too, and one to which many of us have been looking forward for a long time—may I ask him whether, if sterling is to remain an international currency, he will ensure that Commonwealth Governments are closely consulted at all stages by Her Majesty's Government? Does not he think that probably this matter should be considered in relation to standardisation as a whole? Will he also look at that matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the point my hon. Friend puts forward in the last part of his supplementary question, but it raises a rather different issue. The Commonwealth Governments have been informed of what I have said. In addition, when I and my colleagues from New Zealand and Australia met in Ghana in September, we discussed this matter. They acquainted me with the position of their Governments. It is important that we should keep in step with other Commonwealth Governments on this matter.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: While I realise that it is important to keep in step with other Commonwealth countries on this matter, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Commonwealth countries agree to


this course? Does he also appreciate that we are fed up in this House with having major decisions of policy given in answer to Questions, instead of being given to the House as statements saying clearly what Government policy is on these matters?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is viewing this matter with his customary clarity of perception. He has asked me about the position of Commonwealth Governments. Canada, Hong Kong, British Honduras, Mauritius, the Seychelles, East Africa, Malaya and Ceylon have decimal currencies. Other countries have recently changed to a decimal system. They are the British Caribbean, Cyprus, Burma, India and the Union of South Africa.
Countries which still have a non-decimal system are Australia, New Zealand, Ghana, Nigeria, Rhodesia, Nyasaland, the Channel Islands, Gibraltar, Malta, certain islands of the West Indies, Pakistan and Fiji. We will certainly keep in touch with the various Commonwealth countries concerned.

Mr. Dugdale: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply mean that the Government are trying to assist the Lord Privy Seal in his task of getting us as quickly as possible into the Common Market?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that that supplementary question raises a very different issue. It is not, however, totally unconnected.

Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Government have already had plenty of time, and warning, in which to consider this matter, and that we are getting rather tired of government by committee?

Mr. Thorpe: While this Committee is doing this extremely useful work, could it at the same time look at the archaic system of weights and measures?

Mr. Lloyd: I will consider that possibility, but I do not think it likely that the Committee will deal with it.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that although theorists and others will consider this a

good idea, there is widespread opposition from mostly conservative-minded people, and that the least that the Government can do before wrecking an historic currency is to undertake not to take that step without a direct mandate from the country?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that conservative-minded people will adopt a practical approach to this problem and I hope that the findings of this Committee will assist that process.

Mr. Snow: Meanwhile, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider calling for designs so that in future we may have a dignified coinage?

Mr. Lloyd: That is rather a big issue. I will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yesterday, during the exchanges on the Swiss Loan Agreement, I undertook to see whether an opportunity could be found for it to be considered by the House before the Christmas Adjournment.
Hon. Members will have seen the early day Motion which has since been tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members.
[That this House declines to approve the ratification of the Agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Swiss Federal Council for a loan by Switzerland to the Government of the United Kingdom.]
Arrangements are being made for this Motion to be debated tomorrow, WEDNESDAY, 20TH DECEMBER, before the Foreign Affairs debate is entered upon.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a very satisfactory solution to a problem which the Government created for themselves? Would not it have been far better to have had the debate today instead of interfering with the foreign affairs debate tomorrow? Why was not that possible?

Mr. Macleod: I have looked at all the possibilities—today, tomorrow,


Thursday and even Friday. Frankly, it is obvious that at this stage none of them will be very convenient. Today, there is a considerable amount of business to be done before we reach the Orders of the Day. The Motion in the name of the right hon. Gentleman was tabled last night and I should have thought that there should be a business statement before the House is invited to consider it. Taking all these matters into consideration, and with a fairly difficult choice, I think that the solution which I have put to the House is the best.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that tomorrow there is not merely a debate on the Adjournment on foreign affairs, but also the Motion for the Christmas Recess? It is now almost a tradition of the House that some little time is devoted to discussing that Motion. If we add together the time which will be taken by those two Motions, will not it make very ineffective the foreign affairs debate which, I think, there was virtually a unanimous decision that we should have? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what was said yesterday about consultations through the usual channels that produced most unsatisfactory results? So far as I am concerned the "usual channels" have been dammed for quite a long time, and apparently are not allowed to flow in the right direction.

Mr. Macleod: I sympathise with the hon. Member. I have had all those considerations in mind. There is even more business today, as I have said. As I understand, the Opposition, although they wish to raise a number of points on the way in which, the Swiss Loan Agreement has been presented, are not necessarily against the content of the Agreement itself. That being so, I hope that we shall be able to dispose of it in a reasonably short time.

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that although there is other business today, the debate tomorrow is of far greater importance and much more urgent than the debate which is to take place later today in Committee on the Army Reserve Bill. Would not it have been far more satisfactory to the House

to have had the debate on the Agreement today?

Mr. Macleod: I am sorry, but the Leader of the Opposition and myself must agree to differ on that. I really have looked at all the possibilities and I believe that in all the circumstances what I have put to the House is the best.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: To assist hon. Members, can my right hon. Friend say how he thinks the time will be allocated? First, there is the Motion on the Christmas Recess. That may take an hour—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or more."] Then there is the Motion on the Order Paper put down by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the Swiss Loan Agreement. I cannot believe that that will be dropped after half an hour. Are we to get to the foreign affairs debate only at seven o'clock?

Mr. Macleod: As my noble Friend will be aware, I do not allocate time for these Motions. It will be for the House to decide—subject to the Standing Orders, and so on—how long they wish to spend on each of these matters.

Mr. Mellish: May I ask the Leader of the House to look at the business today on the Army Reserve Bill which, I suggest with respect, is not a matter of great urgency. The Secretary of State for War is on record as saying that it is unlikely that we may ever need to use the powers contained in that Bill. As the Leader of the House will know, it is not likely that the Committee stage will be completed. Surely it could be left over until the new year.

Mr. Macleod: The Army Reserve Bill is, of course, a matter of great importance. If affects very many people and it is highly desirable that much of the uncertainty in the minds of the young men who will be affected by it should be removed as soon as possible.

Mr. Paget: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an important difficulty regarding the Army Reserve Bill today in that the Government have made a mess of their Money Resolution so that the proceedings today will have to oven, I understand, by the Government moving to ask leave to report Progress?
That being the situation and since the muddle which has been made over the Money Resolution affects Amendments and the rights of hon. Members to put clown Amendments—indeed, it has excluded a number of Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters wished to put down—is not there everything to be said for putting back a Bill which certainly cannot, in any event, be completed today?
Would not this allow some back bench Members to speak during the foreign affairs debate tomorrow? Under the present arrangement none of them will be able to take part.

Mr. Macleod: If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War does wish to make an explanation of the nature which the hon. and learned Member has indicated, and seeks to move an appropriate Motion, what the hon. and learned Member has said will be relevant at that stage.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on with our business. The Prime Minister.

RADCLIFFE COMMITTEE (REPORT)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a short interim statement about the Report of the Radcliffe Committee.
The House will recall that, on 5th December, I said that I hoped to make a statement before Christmas. I therefore thought it only right to tell the House now that I am still studying the Report and am in touch with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition about it.
I shall, of course, make a fuller statement at the first available opportunity after the Christmas Recess.

SIERRA LEONE (GIFT OF A MACE)

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): With permission. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short statement about the presentation

of a Mace to the House of Representatives of Sierra Leone.
The composition of the delegation has been arranged in consultation with you, Mr. Speaker, and it may be convenient for the House to know that it will consist of:
My right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan). who will lead the Delegation;
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths);
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt);
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. D. Wade).
Mr. H. R. M. Farmer, the Clerk of Financial and Miscellaneous Committees, will accompany the Delegation.
A Motion will be proposed in due course giving leave of absence to the members of the Delegation.
Members may wish to know that the Mace is on view in the Library until tomorrow.

PERSONAL STATEMENTS

Sir T. Low: I apologise to the House for taking up one or two minutes of its time.
In yesterday's debate the hon. Member for Cardiff, South East (Mr. Callaghan) referred to what he called a "roll of dishonour"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Roll of honour."]—in Reynolds News of 17th December which included my name. I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was going to do this. Since the implication of what he said was that in my private capacity I had not followed the Chancellor's request for a dividend pause, whereas I had supported it here, I desire to make this personal statement.
No company of which I am a director has acted contrary to the Chancellor's request about dividends. The dividend declared in August by the company referred to in the article in Reynolds News and to which the hon. Gentleman made reference, was at the rate publicly indicated by the chairman of the company in March. 1961, five months before—

Sir T. Moore: Hear, hear.

Mr. Manuel: That is the whole point.

Sir T. Low: —in a statement which amounted to a public commitment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and on the basis of which many shares had changed hands. This was made clear to the Press in August at the time of the dividend announcement.
The Chancellor, in his statement of 25th July, acceded that regard would have to be had to commitments already entered into. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am taking steps to draw the attention of Reynolds News to the facts and to ask for a correction and an apology.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since a personal statement is not debatable, should it not also be non-controversial?

Mr. Speaker: Nobody makes a statement in a personal explanation unless a script has been previously submitted to the Chair and the Chair does not regard it as containing controversial matter.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Since my name was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to advise the House on what is the procedure for this matter? During yesterday's debate these hon. Members had every opportunity to refute what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), but neither of them, to the best of my knowledge and belief, was present. Is it not the case that you usually allow statements—

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order in that as far as I know. I do not know whether the hon. Members were then present or not. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) said that he did not know what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was going to do.

Mr. Lawson: Can you let hon. Members on this side of the House who regard these statements as controversial know what their position is when a so-called non-controversial statement is made, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think they should put down a Motion criticising the Chair, because they are disagreeing with the Chair's view, for a wrong exercise of its judicial discretion.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Mr. Speaker, since my name was also mentioned yesterday by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and also in the Reynolds News article, I desire to make a brief personal statement.
It is true that a company of which I am a director has increased its interim dividend for the current year from 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. It has done this because the chairman had announced, at the annual general meeting on 4th July last—that is to say, before the Chancellor's statement was made—that from an examination of the first quarter's accounts he was confident that the company would be able to increase its interim and final dividends.
In my view and that of my co-directors, this announcement—which was widely publicised—made it imperative that the dividend should be increased if the company was not to break faith with its shareholders and particularly with those who have bought shares in it.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be a great departure from our traditions if we did not allow an hon. Member making a personal explanation to be heard.

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. Some of us are beginning to wonder what this has to do with the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. If every time somebody's business is mentioned the hon. Member concerned is to give a long account of his business interests, we shall never get any "forrarder".

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will look at the relevant passage in HANSARD for yesterday—I think that it is in column 990, but I do not wish to tie myself to the figure—I think that he will see why it necessarily has House of Commons relevance. I hope that we may now get on with this matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I do hope that we can get on. The first thing I want to know


is whether the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. ThorntonKernsley) has completed his personal statement.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I have very nearly finished, Sir. I was about to conclude by saying that it seemed essential to implement this statement if the company was not to break faith with its shareholders and with those who have bought shares on the basis of what amounted to a firm commitment.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must request the House to keep a greater degree of silence.

Mr. Milne: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I cannot hear what is being said I cannot ensure—and such is my duty—that the script submitted to me is being adhered to. Therefore, I want the assistance of the House in the matter. I now want to know whether the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) is rising to a point of order.

Mr. Milne: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that personal statements of this description are likely to become more numerous in the months that lie ahead, can we save Parliamentary time by asking the Government to issue a White Paper on the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is a point of order. Mr. Stevens.

Mr. Stevens: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must be allowed to hear.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. Has it not been for a very long time the custom of the House that personal statements are listened to without any interruption whatever?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I have already indicated that fact.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has it not been the invariable custom that an hon. Member is allowed to make a personal statement when he wishes to deny or explain a

charge that has been made against him? Having listened to the two statements which have been made so far, so far from being a denial they are a repetition and a confirmation of the original charge. How can they become personal statements?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot argue these matters now. I have explained that, if the House thinks that I am wrong in this matter, the responsibility is mine: but we cannot debate it now.

Mr. Stevens: rose—

Mr. Thorpe: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne). As we are likely to have a plethora—

Mr. Speaker: There was no point of order.

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. Would it not be possible, Mr. Speaker, to set aside a time for public confessions of this sort?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I, too, seek to make a personal statement. My name, also, was included in the "roll of dishonour" read out by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) as having connived at increased dividends. No company of which I am a director has declared any kind of increased dividend whatsoever in the last twelve months.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw any charge that I have made improperly against the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens)? I was relying on what I hoped was accurate information. I should most certainly not wish anything to be imputed against his company which is incorrect. As we have so far only heard from three hon. Gentlemen, may I ask if you are to be requested to give permission to the remaining eight to make personal statements?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair has no control over personal statements, except to see if, when they are submitted to the Chair, they are, in the Chair's view,


proper to be allowed. I have not the slightest idea whether anybody else wants to make one.

Mr. Gaitskell: Further to that point of order. In view of the possibility that tomorrow we may have another series of personal statements, with further interference with the debate on foreign affairs, could the Leader of the House arrange for any of his hon. Friends—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir R. Grimston: On a point of order. May we be informed whether any warning was given of this, because the time-honoured custom of the House is that if hon. Members are to be attacked in debate they are warned beforehand so that they may be present?

Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises, nor is it our practice to debate statements in personal explanation.

CORRESPONDENCE COURSES (REGISTRATION)

4.5 p.m.

Mr. James Boyden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the registration of correspondence courses; and for purposes connected therewith.
The purpose of my proposed Bill is as modest as its title sounds, and I apologise for the sense of anti-climax. It is to provide for the registration of correspondence colleges and their courses with the Ministry of Education, which will have a duty of inspection. The Bill will be on the lines of Part III, Sections 70 to 75, of the Education Act, 1944. I should be very surprised if the Bill arouses the passions which have been exhibited during the last half-hour.
Although an announcement appeared about six weeks ago, I have had no case of anybody objecting to the purpose of the Bill. Indeed, I have had some modest signs of support. The Executive of the National Institute of Adult Education, of which, very recently, I have had the honour to be chairman, is supporting proposals along these lines. The Institute is representative of most local education authorities, universities, the voluntary bodies concerned with education, such as the Townswomen's Guild, Women's Institute and Workers' Educational Association, and of the educational side of the Armed Forces. I shall, therefore, be very surprised if there is very much opposition to it.
The question may well be asked what is the point of introducing such a small Measure. It would ensure that all the colleges were efficient. Most of them are, but there are a number of shady colleges whose prospectuses and objectives border on the fraudulent. While, in England, this is not a very serious matter, it can be serious overseas. When I was in West Africa on two previous occasions I came across African students who were being almost defrauded by colleges whose efficiency and honesty were subject to doubt. It would be in the interests of the reputable colleges to have a Measure such as I propose.
It would do something else. It would bring the Ministry of Education into contact with a field of education about


which very little is known. It is estimated that a large number of students take these courses. The figure has been put at 150,000. This is a very considerable figure in the educational field. It is about equivalent to the total number of university students and students at colleges of advanced technology. It would, therefore, be very much in the public interest and in the interest of the Ministry of Education that the Ministry should know about these courses. From the very fact of registration they will be able to draw up statistics to assess their value in the general educational effort.
A minor point which is not unimportant is that local education authorities are empowered to make, and do make, grants for students to take the courses. Several authorities known to me say that they have no idea of the respective merits of the courses and more or less give grants blind. Further, they are asked by students who cannot attend technical colleges, and so on, to advise them when they are about to enter these courses. They have very great difficulty in doing this.
There would be a more important effect of bringing out into the open the work and facilities which correspondence courses provide. It might do something to throw a searchlight on some forms of professional education, particularly in the commercial field, because many students rely almost entirely on this method of preparation for their examinations. In one sense it might be the cause of the rather narrow professional education in some fields.
For example, there is criticism of the training of cost accountants on the ground that they have not enough knowledge of economics. There is sometimes criticism of legal students. There is sometimes criticism of other commercial students. There seems to be a very considerable variation between the merits of particular types of courses. The Carr-Saunders Committee on Education for Commerce said that correspondence courses were a very bad second to anything else.
On the other hand, some of the students of the professional bodies who take these examinations have very marked success, regularly winning gold medals for being top of the list. Their

students are to be found in the first few places, and great pride is taken in these courses. It is highly necessary that those matters should be considered but, at present, so very little is known about them. A registration scheme under the auspices of the Ministry of Education, such as I propose, would, I think, do some good in this connection.
I do not in any way criticise the reputable colleges. Ten of the largest colleges, those specialising in the commercial examinations and in the degrees of London University, have 50,000 students, and I am sure that all those 50,000 have very satisfactory arrangements made for them. Another college, specialising in industrial technology, has as many as 20,000 students, but I would point out a way in which registration, and the publicity associated with it, would be helpful.
We need as much educational effort and as many people taking part in educational activities as possible. There are throughout the country and abroad, in isolated communities, ship workers, members of the Forces overseas, merchant seamen, whose almost only hope of education when they are at work is through correspondence courses. It would give a very considerable impetus to people studying part time in that way if they knew, when registering for a course that it was absolutely bona fide, and that their efforts and their money would be well protected.
This is one of the very few ways in which applied science can be brought to mature people in the commercial and technical fields. Many hon. Members are interested in the training of teachers, and the like. Registration would probably give an impetus to married women studying at home—possibly being linked to day training colleges—to further their studies and so swell the numbers of those coming forward for teacher training. I would be surprised if there were much opposition to this very modest proposal, and I therefore seek the leave of the House to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Boyden, Mr. Ainsley, Mr. P. Browne, Mr. Grey, Mr. C. Johnson, Mr. Milne, Mr. Owen, Mr. Prentice, Mr. A. Royle, Mr. Short, and Mrs. Slater.

CORRESPONDENCE COURSES (REGISTRATION)

Bill to provide for the registration of correspondence courses; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 18th May, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

SIR EDWARD ABDY FELLOWES, K.C.B., C.M.G., M.C.

4.14 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That Mr. Speaker be requested to convey to Sir Edward Abdy Fellowes, K.C.B., C.M.G., M.C., on his retirement from the Office of Clerk of this House, an expression of Members' deep appreciation of the service which he has rendered to this House for forty-two years, their admiration for his profound knowledge of its procedure and practice, their gratitude for the help constantly and readily given to them, and their recognition of the great work he has done in spreading in and beyond the Commonwealth knowledge and understanding of the traditions of the British Parliament.
It is very pleasant, Mr. Speaker, to turn aside for a moment—in a day that has already seen a good deal of controversy, and before we take up a Bill that is admittedly controversial—briefly to propose a Motion that is sure of universal acceptance by the House.
Sir Edward Fellowes will go down in history as one of the great Clerks of this House of Commons. He succeeded a great man, and that is always a particularly difficult thing to do, but he has won his own place in our estimation by his outstanding ability, by his devoted service and—and this, perhaps, we will remember most—by his courtesy and friendliness to us all.
I do not propose to rehearse the details of a remarkably varied career but, instead, just to mention two or three highlights. He entered the service of this House in 1919—forty-two years ago; or, to put it in another way, before about half of the Members of this House were born. For twenty-five years he has been at the Table. If I pick out just one of the tremendous changes those years have seen it is the one referred to in the

last words of the Motion, the evolution of an Empire into a Commonwealth, during which time he has been adviser to many Commonwealth countries in which national Parliaments were emerging.
Sir Edward Fellowes has been a prominent figure in the Inter-Parliamentary Union. From 1956 to 1960 he was President of that world trade union of clerks, the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments. In Europe, too, his influence has been felt in the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union.
One final point I should like to mention. Sir Edward Fellowes' services to this country have been as distinguished in war time as in peace. During the First World War he was awarded the Military Cross. During the Second World War he commanded perhaps the most remarkable unit in the country—the Westminster Company of the Home Guard. I believe that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) was his second in command. Members of bath Houses served in many different ranks. It really must have been a splendid company to belong to and, if I may say so, it must have required a great deal of tact to command. I am told that the last entry in its official record, made by its commander, reads:
We were jolly good. Fellowes.
By this Motion, we, old Members and new Members alike, of all parties in this House, join in our thanks to Sir Edward, but, beyond these personal tributes, I think that we should like to say, representing as we do, between us, the people of the country, that the Clerk of the House has served his country and ours nobly in peace and in war, and that we wish him and Lady Fellowes a long and happy life.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion which has been moved in such felicitous terms by the Leader of the House.
It was a shock to me when, quite recently, in the course of a conversation, Sir Edward Fellowes told me of his impending retirement. It had not


occurred to me that he had reached that point. He still looks, I am glad to say, extremely well and very healthy, and he still has all the intellectual vigour which we have so often seen displayed over these years. But the years pass, and these things have to happen.
When I was first elected as a Member of this House, Mr. Fellowes, as he then was, used to sit on the left-hand or Opposition side of the House. Over the years, he has moved over to the right-hand or Government side of the House, while, unhappily, we have moved over from the Government side to the Opposition side. But I do not wish to suggest that this has ever affected his impartiality as between the two sides.
Nor has another connection which Sir Edward. Fellowes has with the Government Front Bench. I understand that he and the Home Secretary were at school together, but that Sir Edward was a prefect while the Home Secretary was a very junior figure indeed. Sir Edward has never told us what he thinks of his junior now; if he were not the discreet man that he is I should be looking forward to reading this in his memoirs.
The relations between the Clerks of the House and the Members of this House have always been extraordinarily good. It is one of the remarkable features of this assembly. Sometimes we criticise even the Chair, sometimes we criticise the Chairman of Ways and Means—but I cannot recollect an occasion when any Member of the House has had any friction with any Clerk of the House; not since I have been here, at any rate.
In the case of Sir Edward Fellowes, however, hon. Members will agree that there was something more. We really did look upon him as a personal friend, and there were several reasons for this. He was always a most accessible man; one never had any difficulty in finding him. He was always willing to give advice, however inconvenient the occasion might be to himself. He was immensely courteous to those of us who were somewhat ignorant of the rules of procedure; he never gave the impression of having superior knowledge. He was very fair-minded, and was basically very full of common sense. He was decisive and he was genial. All these things

made up a man for whom we have a great affection.
It is one thing to give advice on the rules of procedure; it is another to contribute to their improvement. Sir Edward Fellowes displayed both those qualities abundantly. Apart from the normal functions he performed in the House, I would especially like to refer to the evidence he gave on a number of occasions to the Committee of Privileges. It was of great value to us, and of very great interest. On the question of innovations, we can recall the "Fellowes Schedule" as it is called, whereby a single debate in Committee of Supply can now range over many different Departments.
I suppose, though, that Sir Edward is better known for his evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure, in 1958. There, in a very far-reaching and imaginative series of proposals, he sketched out how he thought our procedure should be changed. Much of what he then suggested proved to be too radical for the Committee, but there have been occasions when Clerks of the House have made suggestions which have been rejected at the time, but which, in later years, have been adopted. This may well prove to be the case with the evidence that Sir Edward gave to that Committee.
Be that as it may, one of the most attractive features of Sir Edward Fellowes has been the freshness of mind which he has always brought to bear upon our problems. He was not a dull bureaucrat in any conceivable sense of the word, but a man, as I have said, full of common sense, intelligence and experience, and one who was always willing to see what could be done to bring about improvements.
The Leader of the House has referred to Sir Edward's notable services with the Commonwealth, and I do not doubt that in a great many Commonwealth countries, both Speakers and Clerks must feel that they owe a great deal to him. Perhaps I might be allowed to refer to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's annual courses, which take place here, and to which Sir Edward Fellowes contributed so much.
It only remains for me now, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to


express our regret that Sir Edward Fellowes is leaving us, but to wish him very good health and great happiness with Lady Fellowes in his years of retirement.

4.20 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: I do not think that this occasion should pass without a word from the back benches in appreciation of all that Sir Edward Fellowes has done over the years. I have personally known him since he first appeared at that Table as Second Clerk Assistant. My experience has been, and I know that it has been that of all hon. Members on both sides of the House, that whenever we went to him for advice and help he gave it, as the Leader of the Opposition has just said, most courteously, without making one feel in any way as if one were receiving a privilege.
During the course of his remarks, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned that Sir Edward Fellowes was Commander of the Parliamentary Home Guard. That reminds me of an incident, because I had the privilege at one time of having him as my second in command. Perhaps one of the recollections that he will have is that of taking possession of your dining room, Mr. Speaker, and shooting North-over projectors through your window at a dummy tank approaching over Westminster Bridge. I think that the exercise taught us that, in the event of anything really happening, we would be more likely to damage the bridge than the tank.
I want to say on behalf, I know, of all hon. Members who sit on the back benches in this House that when we return after Christmas we shall miss Sir Edward Fellowes. I should like to join in the words expressed by my right hon. Friend and by the Leader of the Opposition, that we shall wish him long life and good health in which to enjoy his honoured retirement.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I, too, should like to be associated with what has been said by right hon. and hon. Members in moving and supporting this Motion. I have often thought that the public do not appreciate to what extent the House of Commons depends upon its Clerk. I sometimes wonder

what would happen if six or seven servants of the House all got influenza on the same day—I think that we should have to adjourn.
I agree, also, with the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), that while we all owe a great debt to Sir Edward and his fellow Clerks, this debt is particularly heavy on the back benchers, and also on all hon. Members of minority parties, particularly those which are more apt to be opposing rather than supporting the Government. One of the most delicate but important duties which Sir Edward has carried out with conspicuous success is to teach hon. Members, such as myself, how to remain in order while perhaps proceeding gently to embarrass the Government. Without this service, too, I do not think that Parliamentary democracy could be carried on.
I should like to thank Sir Edward very warmly for all the kindness and help that he has given and also to join in wishing him and Lady Fellowes a very long and happy retirement.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Frank Bowles: I should like to say a word or two as I think I am the only remaining ex-occupant of the Chair in the House of Commons.
Sir Edward Fellowes, in his letter to you, Mr. Speaker, expressed his gratitude for the support and encouragement which he had received from all the occupants of the Chair. I am quite certain that you will agree with me that the occupant of the Chair is much more in the debt of Sir Edward than he ever was to the Speaker or Deputy-Speaker.
I am very glad that in the Government's Motion there is a phrase which expresses the gratitude of hon. Members of the House to Sir Edward Fellowes for the kindly way in which he has always given advice to hon. Members. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) will agree with this, but my recollection of earlier conversations with older Members of Parliament was that that kindly approach from the Table really originated when Sir Edward became the Second Clerk Assistant.
Before that, from what I have heard from old colleagues who have now passed


on, there was not anything like the kindly attitude shown by Sir Edward. There was a great deal more brusqueness, "We cannot help hon. Members. You must find things out for yourselves." That kind of thing died when Sir Edward became Second Clerk Assistant. For that reason, we are very grateful to the Government for putting that phrase in the Motion.
Reference has been made to the fact that during the war Sir Edward Fellowes became a major, in charge of the Palace of Westminster Home Guard. I was a private in the Home Guard; in fact, I was a private in both World Wars, unlike a great number of people. But we had a great deal of work to do. We guarded this building night after night. I am not quite certain what the hon. Member for Westbury meant, but I remember quite well that in the early mornings, probably Sundays, we used to put tank traps on Westminster Bridge, probably because in those days hon. Members had failed to hit the tank when coming over. We were always glad to know, however well we did our work, that on the north of the square there were the Scots Guards, on the east side the Welsh Guards, on the west side the Grenadier Guards, and on the south side the Coldstream Guards. We were very glad that they were there to save us.
Being a Member of Parliament or an Officer of the House clearly interferes greatly with one's home, family and social life. We all know that. I feel that in view of the great number of years—forty-two—that Sir Edward has been serving this House it is about time that he had a little more time for the social enjoyment of life, and it is in that spirit that I, on behalf, I think, of every hon. Member, wish him good health in a long and happy retirement.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I wish to associate myself with all the tributes which have been paid to Sir Edward Fellowes, and in doing so I know very well that I give expression to the thoughts of many who are no longer Members of the House of Commons. From conversations with them which I

recall, I know that they held Sir Edward in very high esteem.
Sir Edward Fellowes is leaving behind him a legacy which will be a monument to his life's work. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). As a working-class young man coming into the House of Commons, I experienced at Sir Edward's hands the treatment to which my hon. Friend referred. Sir Edward has been one of the most competent and conscientious officials ever to do his duty in the public service of this country.
It is because I have personal recollections of how, throughout my association with him, he has treated me and every elected Member that I wish so much to be associated with the thanks and good wishes which are going out to him today. Sir Edward treated every elected Member in the same way, no matter what his rank or position. Each one of us has received from him the maximum courtesy and the best possible advice.
When the Germans demolished our Chamber and we had to meet in the House of Lords and in Church House, Sir Edward and his colleagues maintained the same high standard in every possible respect. We all owe a great deal to him. Younger Members particularly, especially those of my sort, owe him a special debt. I hope that the legacy of high standards which he leaves behind will continue as a monument to his work and will assist and facilitate the business of the House of Commons in the years to come. I warmly associate myself with all that has been said.

4.32 p.m.

Sir Thomas Moore: If Sir Edward Fellowes does read HANSARD—perhaps he will read it tomorrow morning—I should be very grieved if my name was not among the names of those who had paid tribute to him, to his character, his integrity, his courtesy and his kindness. For thirty-six years he has been a mentor and friend to me in the various capacities in which we have been associated, and never once has he given me anything but wise and good advice. I only wish to goodness that I had followed it more regularly and consistently.
I am very glad, Mr. Speaker, that I have been allowed to add my tribute and wish


him good health, good friends and good fortune during his years of retirement.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, nemine contradicente
That Mr. Speaker be requested to convey to Sir Edward Abdy Fellowes, K.C.B., C.M.G., M.C., on his retirement from the Office of Clerk of this House, an expression of Members' deep appreciation of the service which he has rendered to this House for forty-two years, their admiration for his profound knowledge of its procedure and practice, their gratitude for the help constantly and readily given to them, and their recognition of the great work he has done in spreading in and beyond the Commonwealth knowledge and understanding of the traditions of the British Parliament.

Orders of the Day — ARMY RESERVE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 7th December].

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

4.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I move the Motion purely formally to give the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) an opportunity, which I know he is anxious to take, to raise certain issues in connection with our discussion the other evening on the Money Resolution. Since that time, I have had discussions with hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I realise that it has been felt that there were certain problems connected with that debate which still required elucidation.
It had been my intention to do this when we reached Clause 7, which seemed to me to be the most appropriate time. However, I have had a talk with the hon. Member for Dudley, and I think it would not only be a courtesy to him but would be a courtesy to the Committee also and be also for our better deliberations that we should take the matter now. This seemed to me the most appropriate way to deal with the matter. Therefore, I gladly give the hon. Member the opportunity for which he has asked. If the Committee so wished, I should be very happy to try to clear up some of the points which he may raise, which, in any case, I should have tried to elucidate a little further when we reached Clause 7.
Purely as a formality, therefore, and because I know of no better way of arranging matters, I have moved the Motion.

Mr. J. Grimond: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Would you kindly instruct me as to this procedure? I am greatly obliged to the Secretary of State for what he has said, but I find his remarks exceedingly cryptic. Am I to understand that there is some fault on our previous procedure on the Bill? If so, is not this the moment for the Government to explain


what the present position is? So far, I am entirely in the dark as to what all the trouble is about.

Mr. Profumo: I was not indicating that there was any fault in the Bill at all. I said that I felt that some hon. Members had the impression—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not here, but he may have read it in HANSARD—that the discussions we had were inconclusive. I thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee and our deliberations to clear up any misunderstanding there may have been on that occasion. If hon. Members do not wish it, I am perfectly happy to proceed, but it seemed to me that, in courtesy to the hon. Member for Dudley, who has taken the trouble to speak to me about it, as other hon. Members have, that the course I have suggested would be best. The Committee may, perhaps, wish to proceed in another way, but it seemed more appropriate for the hon. Member for Dudley to explain what he had in mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think it might be better to do it in this way, and that is why I moved the Motion.

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. The right hon. Gentleman has moved a certain Motion. He has given no grounds to support it whatever. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—we are all very grateful for the work he has done on it—will make his views clear when the time comes. But to move a Motion without giving a single reason, except the disclosure of some private talk, is really extraordinary. There must be a defect somewhere or the Minister would not move his Motion at all. He cannot move it for no reason. We should be glad to hear where the Government have gone wrong again so that we may do our best to help them out of their troubles. We are getting used to it, and we should like to know where the present mistake is.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is this not a very unusual procedure to adopt?
I can well understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) may wish to catch your eye. He

is perfectly entitled to do that, of course, and he can do it in the way which is open to all hon. Members. But why should the Secretary of State in moving his Motion plead, as it were, for you to call my hon. Friend rather than any other hon. Member who wishes to speak? If it is a procedural matter, surely my hon. Friend should put it to the Chair.

Mr. George Wigg: On a point of order. May I make it clear that I am not engaged in this device purely for the purpose of being able to speak? I am the only member of the battalion who happens to be in sight.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. How far is this to be regarded as a precedent? Will it be possible for other hon. Members—and some of us also have ideas on the Bill—to go to the Minister? Can the Minister give an assurance that if any hon. Member has a confidential talk with him and perhaps proposes certain things, the right hon. Gentleman will oblige and move to report Progress?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Further to that point of order. Am I to understand from the procedure being adopted that if any hon. Member has any doubts or arguments concerning a Financial Resolution to a Bill he may raise them at any time after the passing of that Money Resolution? Is this not an entirely new departure, and should we not be told something about it before accepting the Minister's Motion? I have no wish to deny my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) an opportunity to speak, but this is a very important departure from the normal procedure whereby we discuss and pass a Money Resolution and are then unable to refer to it again.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: What happens is that when an hon. Member in charge of a Bill moves a Motion it is customary for the Chair to accept it, and now we are waiting to hear the reasons for the Motion.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: May I ask your guidance, Sir Gordon, because I am in somewhat of a difficulty? [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Sir Gordon? I understand that this Motion is being moved as the result of private conversations between my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the Secretary of State for War. We understand that the Motion has been merely moved and it is being left to to an hon. Member on this side of the Committee to give the reasons why it has been moved. [Laughter.] This is the oddest procedure I have ever heard of. Of course, I have been in this House for only 15 years and am still a new hon. Member.
4.45 p.m.
When a Motion of this character is moved, there must be reasons for that course being taken. Surely those reasons should be advanced at the time of moving the Motion? I should like you views on this, Sir Gordon, because what is proposed does not seem logical. We have the odd procedure of a Motion being moved by the Government and an hon. Member of the Opposition being supposed to explain the reasons for it. Is it not making this House rather ridiculous and the Government's position fantastic? We should have been given the reasons by the Secretary of State and then we could have discussed them in the proper way. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dudley may be the only hon. Member in sight, but you know what happens to people in that position, Sir Gordon.

Mr. Loughlin: They get shot.

The Chairman: I am not concerned with the merits of the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am following the usual procedure that when a Motion is moved by the Minister in charge of a Bill it is normal to accept it.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: This is an unusual situation. The Chair accepts a Motion from the Minister to report Progress and the Minister then says that he is not going to explain the reasons for reporting Progress but asks a private hon. Member to explain to the Committee something

that is in the Bill. You will recall, Sir Gordon, that from time to time back benchers move to report Progress and it is not unusual for the Chair to refuse to accept the Motion, especially right at the beginning of business. May I ask you, Sir Gordon, if my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) had moved to report Progress whether you would have accepted such a Motion?

The Chairman: No. [Interruption.] It is usual only to accept it if it is moved by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Profumo: I am only trying to help the Committee, but if my Motion will lead to delay I will gladly say what I had intended to say. I think I had better do what I think is right. As I said earlier, I moved that Motion because I thought it was the only way of allowing the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to say what I know he wishes to say and what, I believe, may be in the minds of a number of hon. Members. It was only a procedural Motion to give the hon. Member for Dudley a chance of doing that. As you said, Sir Gordon, it is not the custom to accept this Motion from anyone other than the Minister in charge of the Bill. May I proceed, then, because I am perfectly happy to do so? I was only trying to help the Committee. We had a long and rambling discussion—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Rambling?

Mr. Profumo: It was properly a rambling discussion—on the Money Resolution.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman just said that we had a long, rambling discussion. Is that not a reflection on the Chair? Should not the right hon. Gentleman be asked to withdraw that remark?

The Chairman: I do not think that that was a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Profumo: The rambling was perfectly in order. Therefore, as I told the Committee, I had intended under Clause 7, which deals with this, to try to pull the strings together because hon. Gentlemen opposite said that they did not understand the Money Resolution. As I said, I had intended to explain it when


we reached that part of the Bill, but I will gladly do it now because I believe it will be in the interests of the Committee if that explanation were given at this stage.
On that occasion they expressed some surprise that a Money Resolution is needed to cover expenditure on reinstatement in civil employment and the protection of civil interests which will arise from Clause 5, while no such Resolution is required for the much larger expenditure which might arise from the retention of National Service men under Clause 1, the recall under Clause 2 or the creation of a new Reserve under Clause 3. Whereas Clause 5 involves an addition to the purposes on which the Ministry of Labour at present has statutory authority to spend money, the same is not true for any expenditure which might be incurred by the War Office.
Perhaps I should enlarge on that. The present statutory authority to incur expenditure on reinstatement in civil employment and the protection of civil interests is limited to men serving in the Armed Forces under the National Service Act, 1948, or to the ambit of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1950, and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act, 1951. Under the new Bill they are required to incur similar expenditure on men covered by the Bill. This is in addition to their previous liability. As the power to incur expenditure of this type depends on statutory authority, that authority must, therefore, be extended accordingly. Hence Clauses 5 and 7 of the Bill.
The War Office already has all the financial powers necessary to implement the Bill; powers to fix rates of pay, bounties, and so on, payable to members of the Forces as covered by prerogative instruments or existing statutory authority. As the War Office is not seeking any new power to incur expenditure, no Money Resolution in respect of Clauses 1 to 3 is necessary. Although we do not require the Money Resolution—because we already have the necessary powers to incur expenditure—the exercise of these powers is subject to the usual Parliamentary control.
By voting the annual Army Estimates, Parliament authorises the maintenance of Regular and Reserve Forces up to

the maximum numbers set out in Vote A and Vote 2, respectively. The Bill does not seek authority for any excess of the numbers so authorised. In addition to authorising certain numbers, the House also, by voting the Army Estimates, authorises expenditure for pay, maintenance, recruitment and so on, for men in the Regular and Reserve Forces. The Bill does not seek authority for expenditure over and above the amounts already voted by Parliament. If such authority is required, that will be sought in the normal way by a Supplementary Estimate.
With regard to Army expenditure, the Bill does not involve the spending of money on services not covered by the approved Estimates. We already have authority to spend money on pay, maintenance, recruitment and so on, and it is only on such services as these that expenditure which flows from the Bill will be incurred. That explanation should put in proper perspective the scope of the Money Resolution.
Several hon. Members expressed concern about this and had the Money Resolution not been talked out I should have wished to pull the strings closer at the ends. I hope that my having now made that statement will be in the interests of the Committee. I thought that that was what the hon. Member for Dudley might say, but I have gladly said it before him. I hope that hon. Members now understand this rather abstruse point.

Mr. Wigg: First, let us get out of our minds the part played by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. What he had to say on the Money Resolution was right on the target. We can remove from our discussion that part of the speech of the Secretary of State for War affecting Clause 5. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon was absolutely right and no one could take exception to what he said.
However, what he said this afternoon was not what he said in the debate on 28th November on the Money Resolution. When one reads that debate, one gets a tremendously muddled impression as to the purpose of the Money Resolution. I must confess that before that debate my view, from a reading of the Army Reserve Act, 1950, was that that


was a Statute which could be amended. I subsequently discovered that the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953, could also be amended. The Money Resolution which was debated ends with these words:
…in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act.
If there were no Acts to be amended, no Amendments could be tabled, because the Secretary of State, in his remarks on the Money Resolution, argued, not on one occasion but on many occasions, that the pay of the Army was controlled by the Prerogative. It is in my view clear that the right hon. Gentleman, as advised by the War Office, was unaware of the implications of the Army Reserve Act, 1950, and of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953, and that he was trapped into this view by what happened in the discussion on the Army Emergency Reserve bounties which followed his statement in February.
A National Service man doing his colour service is a Regular soldier. When he completes his two years he goes to the Army Emergency Reserve in a minority of cases, but the overwhelming majority become part-time soldiers on the books of the Territorial Army, as it were. Therefore, for the purpose of this part-time service, pay, discipline and bounties are subject to Amendment by the ordinary process.
I was aware of the difference between Vote 1, which is subject to the Prerogative, and Vote 2, which is subject to Statute, but when I argued the matter with some of my hon. Friends this was dismissed as expertise on my part. The only expertise that I have is that I can count up to ten, can read, and do not run away from unfortunate things if they do not suit me. My hon. Friends wanted to deal with the Bill as a moral question. At that point, I fade out because I do not possess the wisdom or loquacity to discuss a Bill of this kind as a moral question.
I listened to the debate on the Money Resolution. I must confess that at the end of it I was completely bewildered. Never was there a time when such a galaxy of talent was present. There were Old Etonians in droves, interspersed with a few Wykhamists and one or two people with first-class honours

degrees. Yet it was abundantly clear that both Front Benches at the end of that debate did not know that the pay of the troops was subject to the Prerogative and that this affected reservists.
If there is one major grievance in the Bill which causes the maximum bitterness and hatred of the Army and all that it stands for it is the fact that the men who have to do another six months feel that they cannot be protected by back bench Members. There is not one hon. Member, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who has not some constituents whose lives are in danger of being ruined by this Bill. Hon. Members on both sides tabled Amendments to it. I did myself. What drove me off beam was that the Secretary of State argued that the question of pay was subject to the Prerogative and, therefore, that I could not table an Amendment. I must confess that I doubted my wisdom and knowledge in this matter. It seemed to me that it was one for expert legal advice. I knew that I was not competent in legal matters and, therefore, came to the conclusion that I was wrong.
On Friday I was en route for happier places, but it was foggy and therefore I could not go anywhere. In those circumstances, I did a little homework and began to prepare for this debate. I had been working for only a few minutes when I came to the conclusion that I was right and that everyone else was wrong. At that point, I thought that I was mad. I consulted the Public Bill Office and the War Office and discovered that I had been right all the time and that the War Office was engaged in correcting matters.
I must here plead for hon. Members' charity. I was up against a formidable problem. We had passed "standing orders" on the previous Thursday night. We were forbidden to table Amendments. I was forbidden even to consult my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), with whom I had had discussions before he went abroad, or my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who, unfortunately, is ill today. What could I do? I tried to consult the officers of my party, but there was no-one available. They had all deserted. I therefore took the very grave risk of


putting three Amendments on the Notice Paper. I put my duty to the Army before my duty to my party. It will, therefore, be possible later for hon. Members on both sides to express their views on the merits of those Amendments which they could not have done if the War Office had not been converted to my point of view.
May I point out the situation in which we find ourselves? I make no imputations of dishonourable conduct against the Secretary of State for War or charge him with deliberately misleading hon. Members. I merely say that he and his Department were wrong. I do not propose to weary hon. Members with them, but I have half-a-dozen or more examples in which the right hon. Gentleman was completely wrong in the information which he gave hon. Members. However, the Committee, in its wisdom, accepted what he said. I must say, in fairness, that the view of my own Front Bench was better than that of the Government Front Bench. The Committee, having accepted what the right hon. Gentleman had said, adopted the Money Resolution. It was reported to the House on 7th December and was accepted. Having accepted the Money Resolution, there was nothing hon. Members could do about it. However, it means that hon. Members on Report can table Amendments on pay, discipline, conditions of service and bounties if they so wish. My dilemma on Friday afternoon was that, if they were not tabled then, they would be starred on Monday. There was, therefore, no alternative.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I noticed that my hon. Friend said that on Report we shall be able to table Amendments on certain matters. Does he mean that it is permissible to do that only on Report or that it would have been possible, if we had had the necessary knowledge, to table them during the Committee stage?

Mr. Wigg: I wished to table Amendments a fortnight ago. One Amendment which was tabled by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) was out of order, but I discussed the Amendment with him because my mind was moving in the direction indicated by that Amendment. I stopped short in my

tracks simply because of what was said by the Secretary of State for War.
5.0 p.m.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will acquit me of any wish to be discourteous. It was not because of what he said. It was because I have a profound respect for his financial advisers in the War Office. I did not believe that they would let him say this unless this doctrine was correct. It was only because the Secretary of State for War said this in Committee that I stopped short.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Does my hon. Friend have the column reference of what the Secretary of State for War said?

Mr. Wigg: Yes. At col. 184, the right hon. Gentleman said that the cost would
either be paid for under existing Army Estimates already passed or will come under the Army Estimates for next year.
Later, he said:
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are seeking to muddle the situation. It is perfectly clear.
Then, he argued that the points that were being made had nothing to do with the Money Resolution, as, he said, one of my hon. Friends knew. Then, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
If any 'Ever-readies' are recruited before the next Army Estimates, or there is any expenditure, that is covered in Vote A.
Vote A concerns numbers. That statement is quite wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
It is clear that this is an Army Estimates matter and not a matter for the Money Resolution.
In the Army Estimates, all that the Committee does is to vote the money. It is governed either by Statute or the existence of the Prerogative. Then, at col. 191, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The position is that the Money Resolution covers everything which is new expenditure.
That is absolutely untrue, because it was covered by Section 11 of the 1950 Act or the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
As the Committee knows, the legal basis for all Army pay is the Royal Warrant, which entitles us to make payment.


That is absolutely untrue of the Vote 2 charges. The right hon. Gentleman then said—and this is the classic example:
Perhaps I may give an example. Some months ago we started a different sort of bounty for a different sort of reserve—the Army Emergency Reserve, Category I. This was done after the Army Estimates last year, but we did not need a Money Resolution for it.
Again, that is a complete misconception, because these men were soldiers of the Regular Forces.
The Secretary of State went on to say:
This part of the Bill which we are now discussing, the part which might attract a bounty for a different sort of reserve, will also not come under the Money Resolution but will come under the Royal Warrant which takes regard of pay, and any funds which are needed for the next Army Estimates will be carried on existing Army Estimates.
Here again is a fundamental misconception of the purpose of the Estimates in relation to the Armed Forces. It is true concerning the pay of the Regular Forces that that is done through the exercise of the Prerogative. It is also true as regards the pay of the Army Reserve that it is done under Section 11 of the 1950 Act, and, in the case of the Territorial Army, under Section 11 of the 1953 Act.
My final quotation from the right hon. Gentleman is in col. 192, where he said:
The Royal Warrant is the basis of all Army pay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961: Vol. 650, cc. 184, 186–7, 191–2.]
That is untrue. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. At least, it is true concerning Vote 1, but it is not true of Vote 2, which bears the charge for Reserve pay and for the Territorial Army.
I do not want to keep the Committee too long. We have lots of work in front of us. When I discovered this, my purpose was to try to get it put right, because I have a vested interest concerning the Army to try to get these points plain. If one can get the situation about the Army clear and distinct, there is, perhaps, a chance that some day the country may get an appreciation of the truth of our military situation.
Before I sit down, may I indulge in a little homily, again for only a couple of minutes. Will hon. Members stop

for a moment—we are just about to break up for the Christmas Recess—and see where we have got to? In the last ten years, we have spent £16,000 million from an economy which, we all know, is strained. It has gone on providing for the Armed Forces of the Crown. We have argued about moral questions, about bombs, about tactical weapons, about the number of divisions, the size of divisions—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is going wide of the Motion.

Mr. Wigg: I do not want to abuse your kindness, Sir Gordon. I am just ending, but I am drawing the picture and asking hon. Members to reflect on the picture which faces the country after this vast expenditure. Here we face the consequences of the Arm, Reserve Bill, which will bring ruin and unhappiness to thousands of young men and will create unsettling conditions for thousands more, and yet the House of Commons in Committee, with the best brains of two Front Benches, is incapable of even beginning to understand how to administer the simplest rates of pay in the Army.
This is a sobering thought. It is one which I have tried to bring to the Committee during the fifteen years I have been here. We have had arguments about bombs and about atomic strategy, but not even the remotest understanding of the simplest problem. At present, the country is incapable of raising a company of Pioneers or a section of A.T.S. to send either to Goa or Katanga.

The Chairman: That does not arise on this Motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Mr. Harrison.

Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order. If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, Amendments that he wished to put down were incorrectly ruled out of order and he was not able to debate them.

The Chairman: There is no suggestion by the hon. Member that his Amendments have been incorrectly ruled out of order.

Mr. Paget: Further to the point of order. Surely, Sir Gordon, that is precisely the case. Not only Amendments from this side, but an Amendment by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), have been ruled out precisely because the Minister categorically—I do not say deliberately, but in fact—misled the House and, indeed, misled the Chair.

The Chairman: In deciding these Amendments, the Chair is concerned with the Money Resolution. I have ruled them out on the ground of whether they are inside or outside the Money Resolution. I have not been concerned with what the Minister said but am bound purely by the Money Resolution.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. Is not the point, not so much a question of Amendments that have been put down and which might be thought to be out of order, as that certain Amendments have not been put down because of the statement made by the Secretary of State for War on the last occasion? What my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) made clear was that, in view of the statements by the Secretary of State for war in the last debate, he himself has stopped short of putting Amendments down. In my hon. Friend's case, the matter was corrected because he investigated further and came to the conclusion that the Secretary of State for War was incorrect; and because he came to that conclusion, my hon. Friend put down the Amendments which are on the Notice Paper today. There may well be other hon. Members who remain in the position in which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley found himself before he made his investigation on Friday.

The Chairman: That is not a matter for me. I cannot possibly deal with Amendments which might have been put down.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: May I continue with the point of order, Sir Gordon? It concerns the procedure that we are to follow in this Committee in view of what has happened. We now have the Motion of the Secretary of State for War proposing that we should report Progress. That may well be the best course to take in these circum

stances. I am speaking to that Motion—

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The point of order concerns the procedure which the Committee should now follow and whether that procedure should be to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's Motion or to deal with the matter in some other way That is the point of order which I am raising.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order. It is a matter for the Committee to decide.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: With great respect, Sir Gordon, this is a point of order. I am raising the question whether the Committee is now in order, or should be considered in order, in proceeding in circumstances in which members of the Committee have been led to act on the statement made by the Secretary of State for War as a result of which Amendments may not have been put down which otherwise would have been put down. It makes the whole procedure utterly farcical if we are to continue to act on the footing that everything is now in order in this Committee when in fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said, hon. Members have been influenced into not putting down Amendments because they relied on the accuracy of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I sought to put down an Amendment because my mind was working in the same way as that of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who has done such excellent work. Having put down the Amendment asking for a bounty for men retained under Clause 1, I was assured by the Clerks that it was in fact out of order. I merely asked that it should go on the Notice Paper as a demonstration, although I was assured that it was out of order. If I had believed that in fact it was in order to raise this matter, I should have gone a great deal further.

The Chairman: The hon. Member's Amendment was out of order and it is still out of order.

Mr. Allaun: On a point of order. I put a Question to the Table precisely on this point about the bounty and it was accepted by the Clerks. I put down a Question to the Secretary of State asking that a bounty should be paid to the conscripts who had to serve an additional six months. The Clerks accepted it, as it would not be raised under the Bill because of the Money Resolution. I suggest to you, Sir Gordon, that we have been so misled on this matter that the Government should now withdraw the Bill. This is not a light matter. This is not a matter of another 5 per cent. on some import duty. This Bill affects vitally the liberty of thousands of individuals, and whether they must serve at the will of the Government for six months more in peace time. This is an important matter, closely affecting the liberty of the individual. Since we have been so misled—there is evidence of it from at least three hon. Members—I maintain that the Government have a duty to withdraw the Bill forthwith.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I should like to support the Motion—

Mr. Brian Harrison: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. You called me to speak following the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) before we were interrupted by these points of order.

The Chairman: Mr. Harrison.

Mr. Harrison: Thank you very much, Sir Gordon. I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to discuss this point. The more one studies the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate on 27th November, the more it becomes apparent to the back benchers, who look up with respect to the Front Benchers—

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Look down.

Mr. Harrison: —that we were disgracefully misled by both Front Benches. The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) gave us a long dissertation on virement and its application to this Money Resolution. So far as I can see, it has no application whatever. The whole position in regard to the Bill, the Money Resolution and the financing of it, has become increasingly complicated. I must confess that, despite briefing from

the best source I could find—the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—I have not been able to clear my mind on exactly how the finance will work.
5.15 p.m.
There is still a possibility—I ask my right hon. Friend not to deny this without very careful consideration—that the Money Resolution is so tightly drawn that it might not apply to one of the types of reservists he has to call up. We may find that he has to come back to the House with different legislation in order to pay the "Ever-Readies." My right hon. Friend should look extremely carefully at this to make certain that he will not exceed his power. One hopes that the "Ever-Readies" will be a success. One would hate to see my right hon. Friend and his chief financial officer having to face a bill for the whole of the "Ever-Readies," because they would be the persons financially responsible.
For a very different reason from that of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), I find myself agreeing that this Bill ought to be taken back and reconsidered. It is a hotch-potch. It looks as if it is a hotch-potch which cannot be correctly financed. Probably it is essential that more consideration should go into the financing of the Bill and its legal aspects. I know that my right hon. Friend has adequate money in hand in his Votes because of the low numbers in the actual reserves and special categories he has at the moment. He has not used up all the money which Parliament has voted to pay those reserves. He ought to go very carefully into the Bill to consider all the aspects and to consider whether in the light of the changing world situation something completely different ought not to be done. He ought to consider the advice given on 2nd March, 1937:
National Defence is the basic pre-condition, the foundation itself of collective security. A country which is too weak to protect its own people is hardly likely to be in a position to go to the help of others."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1937; Vol. 321, c. 250.]

The Chairman: This is going far beyond the procedural Motion.

Mr. Harrison: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Gordon. I was trying to back up my arguments with a quotation from a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth


Relations, who had rather different views on defence in the thirties from those he has today. I hope that I have said sufficient for my right hon. Friend to consider very carefully whether this Bill ought not to be taken back, looked at carefully and thoroughly and then represented to the House.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Before we proceed, as we have got only half way through Clause 1 and there have been certain infringements of the rights of hon. Members and some of us wish to urge a course of action on the Government, would it not be proper for the Leader of the House to be present so that we may have his advice on the matter?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: This is almost like "Alice in Wonderland". My point of order arises from bewilderment. As I understand, not only have Members of Parliament been misled by the right hon. Gentleman, but the Clerks at the Table have been misled. When we go to the Clerks at the Table and wish to put down an Amendment or a Question they give us the greatest help. They always look at statements which Ministers have been made to see that the Amendment or Question is in order according to those statements. As I understand it, the Clerks at the Table have been misled by the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and, because they hav been misled, hon. Members have not had the right to put down Amendments which they would otherwise have put down.

The Chairman: Hon. Members' Amendments are never refused by the Table.

Mr. Brockway: They have not been refused, but they have been advised and wrongly advised as a result of what the Minister has said. That is an impossible situation and there is no course which the Minister can take, consistent with his own dignity and that of the House, other than to withdraw the Bill and begin all over again.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. I want to be most careful not to mislead any hon. Member and perhaps, as a point of order, I can explain what happened.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) put down an Amendment which, broadly, tried to do what I wanted to do. He and I discussed it and he told me that his Amendment was out of order. I then proceeded to think along the lines of amending the Bill, but involving money considerations. It was at that point that I desisted, purely of my own volition. I had nobody to blame but myself, because I believed what I read in HANSARD. I bitterly regret that, but, subsequently, ten minutes' homework convinced me that I was right in the first instance. At any time during that fortnight, had I been diligent enough, I could have put down the Amendment. I went to the hon. Member for Beckenham, who has done me the courtesy of signing his name to my Amendment, for the simple reason that his Amendment was out of order in any case, for it cut across the exercise of the Prerogative. The simple point is that all parties, including the Secretary of State, believed that there was no Act covered by the words "under any other Act" which could be amended. Originally, I knew that there was—the 1950 Act—and subsequently I learned about the 1953 Act.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. Is not the debate becoming a little confused? Is not this a Motion of order so that the arguments which are directed to whether the Bill should be taken back and reconsidered are precisely what we are considering? There is obviously an extremely important matter to be debated and one on which many hon. Members wish to express their opinions. But surely it is on the substance of the Motion rather than on points of order at this stage.

The Chairman: I wish that hon. Members would conduct the debate as a debate rather than as a series of points of order.

Mr. Fletcher: May I preface what I am about to say by observing that I entirely agree with he point which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has just made?


I rise to support the Motion to report Progress. The Minister was right and sensible to move it. I agree with what the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) has said and his reasons for supporting the Motion. It is the only possible course open to the Committee at this stage. I support the Motion for reasons slightly different from those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I do not claim to have his expert knowledge of all the Statutes relating to the Army. Nor have I attempted, since the Second Reading debate and our discussion of the Money Resolution, to put down Amendments, as he has done.
However, I took part in that debate because I was not statisfied with the Money Resolution and I did not understand it. Unfortunately, that debate was curtailed by our rules of order, because, nowadays, a time of only three-quarters of an hour is allowed for debating a Money Resolution. However, during that time we had answers from the Secretary of State for War to some questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), myself and others. Speaking for myself, in my ignorance and perhaps in my stupidity, I accepted the explanations then given by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wigg: We all did.

Mr. Fletcher: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, I have not attempted since 27th November to put down Amendments, and my reason is that I accepted certain assurances, given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and by the Secretary of State for War. If I had not had those assurances and if I had had the assiduity of my bon. Friend the Member for Dudley, no doubt I should have attempted to put down Amendments, but, in my ignorance, I was prepared to accept the assurances given on behalf of the Government.
As I understand it, the whole reason why the Government are now moving to report Progress is that they are admitting that those assurances were wrong, that they misled the House, and that, if they had not misled the House, the Committee stage of this Bill might have assumed

a very different form. In common with others, I would have felt free to put down Amendments, but we were inhibited and frustrated from doing so because of the assurances.
That is my grievance, or it would have been if the Secretary of State for War had not taken what I regard as the right and proper course and moved to report Progress in order that the Government could reconsider the matter and consider whether there should be a new Money Resolution, or what should be done. I am supporting the Government. I believe that the only proper course which they could take was to report Progress. The only proper and sensible course for the Committee to take is to support the Government in their desire to do so.
I emphasise that argument by pointing out that when I took part in the debate on 27th November, I was rash enough to say that I thought that the Government's Money Resolution was so complicated and so unsatisfactory and so ambiguous that nobody could understand it and it could not possibly be right. I was told that its only objective was to deal with Clause 5. Questions were then raised about the pay of the Army, the Territorial Reserve, the "Ever-Readies" and so on, and we were told by the Secretary of State that none of those questions could possibly arise on the Money Resolution because they were all governed by the Prerogative, and at 11 p.m., the Secretary of State confirmed that and confirmed what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour had said and stated:
As the Committee knows, the legal basis for all Army pay is the Royal Warrant…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 191.]
I do not know whether the Committee knew it then, or ought to have known it or knows it now, but it is now apparent from what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has said, supported by the researches of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, that that was quite wrong and that there are Acts of Parliament which govern this matter and Acts of Parliament involved in the Bill. There is a Section of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act, 1950, and a Section of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953. Those are the Acts which, by implication, are mentioned in


the concluding words of the Money Resolution, which reads:
it is expedient to authorise payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys or provided under any other Act
5.30 p.m.
If we had had more than three-quarters of an hour on 27th November, I have no doubt that my hon. Friends would have pursued the matter and would have wanted to know what were the "other Acts" referred to in the Money Resolution. If we had been told what the other Acts were—whether the 1950 or the 1953 Act or any other Act—we should have put down Amendments to deal with those Acts, but we were misled. I am not saying that we were deliberately misled. I, personally, acquit the Secretary of State for War of deliberately misleading the Committee. I do not think he understood the position. I think that he was in complete ignorance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]—about the way in which the Army is in fact financed, and that is obvious both from the previous observations he made on that date and from his admissions and confessions of failure which he has made today. I think that it is right and honourable of him in these circumstances to have proposed that we should report Progress, because it seems to me that the implication of passing that Motion is that we should have plenty of time over Christmas in order to consider the effect of this muddle and confusion and to decide what should be done.

Mr. Wigg: It is important to get this quite clear. The only point I make is that I have a vested interest in trying to get it quite clear. If, on the night of 27th November, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) had gone on for eleven hours, not only until eleven o'clock at night but for another day, the answer which he would have got from the Minister would have been that there were no other Acts, and that the earlier statements of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, were absolutely on target. That disposes of the issue of Clause 5. Where the hon. Gentleman went wrong was that he went too far.

He brought in the issue of the Prerogative, and it was because he believed that it was the exercise of the Prerogative that he would have answered my hon. Friends, if they had pressed him about what the other Acts were, that there was none. It was only later, when we discovered that there were other Acts—those of 1950 and 1953; Section 11 in each case—that the interpretation placed on the Money Resolution in that debate was seen to be incorrect.

Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he knows far more about this subject than I do, and far more than the Secretary of State for War. I think it is pure guesswork to say what the Secretary of State for War would have said if he had been asked further questions on 27th November. What is quite obvious is that he did not know how to answer the questions being asked, and, if he did, he gave the wrong answers. Therefore, I am not interested in what would have been the answers to a lot of other questions which we did not have the time to ask him.
It is quite clear that all of us were completely misled on 27th November by the statements of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and the Secretary of State for War. This is now common ground among all of us. I feel embarrassed because if I had had a truthful, honest and correct answer on 27th November, I should have taken a totally different course, and should have examined those Acts of 1950 and 1953 far more carefully, and would have put down, as no doubt many of my hon. Friends would have done, another series of Amendments.
It is for these reasons that I support the Motion, and I very much hope that the Committee will consider it. After we have finished the debate, I hope we shall have an opportunity, after the Christmas Recess, in the light of any further explanations which we may receive from the Minister, of putting down any further Amendments that may be required, unless, as some of my hon. Friends have suggested, another course is taken, which I support, and the Bill is withdrawn altogether.

Mr. Allaun: On a point of order. Would you agree, Sir Gordon, that the


guts of this Bill are contained in Clause 1, and, therefore, we have been discussing the most contentious and the most important points in the Bill, with our hands tied behind our backs, because we were forbidden or unable to move what we wanted—

The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Allaun: On a point of order. Supposing it had been an important matter that was dealt with in one of the later Clauses, say Clauses 5 or 6. Then, of course, no exception could have been taken to this procedure. In view of the fact that a vital principle is at stake in Clause 1, but we have not been able to deal with it in the way which we should like, I suggest to you very seriously, Sir Gordon, that there is a case for the withdrawal of the Bill itself.

The Chairman: That is not a question for me.

Mr. Profumo: May I answer the hon. Gentleman, because I think we are in danger of getting confused, and I want to hear more hon. Members on this point. I can answer to this extent, and I know that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will agree with me. The pay of the men referred to in Clause 1 of the Bill is entirely covered by the Royal Warrant. Whatever hon. Members may say, and I wish to hear them all speak, there can be no question of any misleading or of any misconception regarding the men paid under Clause 1, except in so far as the hon. Gentleman has put down an Amendment which seeks to deal with this as something different. This is important, because the hon. Gentleman has sought to mislead other hon. Members who are wishing to understand this very complicated matter. I say most emphatically that, whatever views there may be, there can be no question of anything misleading in anything we have discussed on Clause 1.

Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order. It is important to point out that these men who fall under Clause 1, but for the operation of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill would, on the completion of their two years, become part-time members of the Territorial Army,

and, to that extent, would become subject to the provisions of Section 11 of the 1953 Act. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that they are Regular soldiers and that their pay and conditions are subject to the Prerogative, and, but for the Bill, would become subject—or at least the majority of them—as members of the Territorial Army—

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is not a point of order for me.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. E. Fernyhough: On a point of order. May I draw your attention to the fact that, although we have before us a Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman to report Progress, we have made no more progress. How can we move to report Progress, when we have not made any progress since he last moved to report Progress? I should like to have a Ruling on this, because some of us like to understand—

The Chairman: Order. It is a technical term. We often report Progress when no progress has been made.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Further to that point of order. May I respectfully direct your attention, Sir Gordon, to the OFFICIAL REPORT for 7th December, col. 1704, when we were last engaged in Committee on the Army Reserve Bill? You will see, at the top of col. 1704 these words in italics:
Committee report Progress to sit again Tomorrow.
My submission is that, before the Committee had an opportunity of sitting at all today, the Secretary of State for War moved a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, without any period intervening between the passing of the last Motion to report Progress and the present proposal that we should again report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I should like to ask whether it is possible to keep on moving Motions of this kind, without any interval between the moving of these Motions to report Progress. We know that it is a technical formula to enable the Government to get out of a difficulty, to enable Members to go home, to have a tea break or whatever it may be.
Surely it is not technically possible to have two Motions to report Progress and ask leave to sit again without any sitting of the Committee having taken place in between the moving of the two Motions? I hope, Sir Gordon, that you will be in a position to explain to me what at the moment is a rather insoluble mystery.

The Chairman: I shall be glad to try to help the hon. Member. There has been much business done in the interval between 7th December and the moving of the Motion which is now before the Committee.

Mr. Herbert Butler: How long are we to sit here and listen to this duet between the Secretary of State for War and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)? The Motion before us is to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. We do not want to listen to duets and hear the same arguments repeated as to why we should do this. I hope that we shall not continue with this cross-chat of Flanagan and Allen.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: Like other hon. Members, I listened with interest to the debate on 27th November on the Money Resolution, and, like other hon. Members I heard the explanation—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. When my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) raised his paint of order, you said that between 7th December and now we had made progress.

The Chairman: I said that business had been done.

Mr. Lewis: Have we made progress on this Bill?

The Chairman: I said that business had been done.

Mr. Paget: May I make a suggestion to some of my hon. Friends? This Motion is one of great importance. A number of hon. Members wish to take part in the discussion, and I suggest that hon. Members should refrain from raising points of order which are not points of order.

Mr. A. Lewis: My hon. and learned Friend has asked us to stop raising points of order. I asked whether the Chair could say whether we had made

progress. That was a legitimate request. Sir Gordon advised that we had made progress in the intervening period, and that satisfied me.

The Chairman: "Progress" is a technical term. If my opinion is asked, I shall say that we are not at the moment making very much progress.

Sir F. Maclean: If I might ask the Committee to progress backwards for a moment, I should like to return to the debate on the Money Resolution to which I listened, as I did to the explanation given by my right hon. Friend.
Not being an expert in these matters, I naturally assumed, as I think most hon. Members did, that my right hon. Friend's explanations were valid. We now find that apparently that is not the case, and I am extremely disappointed. We all know that in these times the Secretary of State for War does not, unfortunately, have very much say in matters of policy, but one expects him to be right at least an matters of detail.
Nobody likes this Bill. Those who are in favour of National Service, as I am, do not like it because we consider it to be half-hearted and lopsided. Those who are against it—and I think this includes the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee judging by their utterances in the past—do not like it because it contains a measure of selective service, and a very unfair one at that, and I do not imagine that the Government will like it much after these proceedings.
5.45 p.m.
I therefore suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should take this Bill away and lose it, and come back with a better Measure which will give us what we need, enough men to fulfil our commitments and our responsibilities for as long as we need to.

Mr. Bellenger: I think that the Committee is right in showing a good deal of resentment at the conduct of this Bill so far, due, perhaps, as one of my hon. Friends said, to the ignorance of the right hon. Gentleman, or, perhaps, to some misapprehension. Whatever it was, we started our proceedings in an unusual way. The Secretary of State for War rose and moved the Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress and


ask leave to sit again." When the Minister in charge of a Bill does that, we believe that he means what he says. We were, therefore, very interested to hear what he had to say.
At first—and, Mr MacPherson, I raised this as a point of order with your predecessor in the Chair—I thought that he was doing it merely to give my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) an opportunity to make a statement. I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that I am trying to deny him any opportunity of addressing the Committee. I know that he can look after himself very well in this respect. We were interested to hear that, apparently—although subsequently the right hon. Gentleman gave us a different impression—because of some discussion that he had had with my hon. Friend, he thought that he ought to take this unusual step. But when we heard the right hon. Gentleman, he tried to put, in a different proportion, what he had said on a former occasion.
What did the right hon. Gentleman say this afternoon? He said something with which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley agreed, namely, that he has the money and that he has the power, without the Money Resolution, to keep certain National Service men in the Army and to call up certain reservists. I can understand that, but the right hon. Gentleman went on in a lighthearted manner to say that if he did exceed his Estimates he would lay before the House a Supplementary Estimate.
It is intolerable for a member of the Government to say, "I want so many men and it is going to cost so much money", and then later to lay before the House a Bill like this and say, "Ah, but if by any chance I have not got enough money for the purpose of this Bill, without asking for the House to approve the Money Resolution, I shall lay before the House a Supplementary Estimate and ask the House to approve it".

Mr. Profumo: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman can speak for himself. He has caused enough confusion by some of his statements, and perhaps he will do his

best to clear the air. If he does not agree with what I am saying, let him say so, but what I protest about is the way in which, on an important Bill like this, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been misled.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley on these matters. There is no doubt that he has a vast practical knowledge, and that he does a good deal of research to find out whether he can table Amendments which will be in order, but is no other hon. Member without the vast knowledge of my hon. Friend to be in a position to table Amendments? We have heard today that most hon. Members—except my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley—have been misled. Therefore, the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) is quite right in suggesting that the Secretary of State should take the Bill away and think again. We hope that he will have an opportunity to consider these important matters in the Christmas Recess.
I have been in the position now occupied by the right hon. Gentleman, and I know that it is not an easy matter to understand Army legislation—the Royal Warrant, the Prerogative and other matters. I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of wilfully misleading the House. All I am saying is that he may have slipped up. We understand that. But why should we be put in this position? We are expected to vote on the Bill and do things which the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire has already said that many of us dislike. Why should we be put in the position of doing that merely because the right hon. Gentleman is trying to rush through this legislation in a slipshod fashion?
I accuse the Government, not only in this instance but in other instances, of trying to browbeat the Committee by using their majority to steamroller through these matters.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Since we all appear to be agreed, on both sides, that we should report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and since it is nearly Christmas, I beg to move, "That the Question be now put."

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): It is not possible for me to accept that Motion.

Mr. Michael Foot: Judging by the speeches that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, if the Government wish to carry the Motion they can do so unanimously. The Minister only has to say that he wants the Motion to be carried. We do not want to continue the discussion further. Since the Minister's original intervention not one speech has been made which has not supported the Government's proposition. Therefore, the Government can have their way at any time. All they have to do is to say that they want the Motion carried. That will finish business for the day and the Government will be able to follow the advice given by Members on both sides of the Committee that they should take the Bill away and reconsider it. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) should not be complaining. He was urging the Government to bring the debate to a conclusion.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member only has to sit down and keep quiet and the Question will be put.

Mr. Foot: The hon. and gallant Member is being even more simple than he looks. That is not the case. At one moment we thought that he was rebelling against the Government, but from what he now says it is evident that he is trying to assist them to get out of the difficulty into which they have got the whole Committee. The Government can carry the Motion whenever they want to.
Unlike many hon. Members, I have not been briefed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). Some hon. Members on this side have been briefed by him, and every hon. Member who has spoken from the benches opposite, with the exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, has clearly been briefed by him. I bring an absolutely fresh mind to bear upon the subject.
I cannot go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I was very moved when he said that if it had not been for what the Minister had said on 27th November he would have been diligently putting down Amendments to the Bill, and that it was only because he followed so closely what the Minister had said that

he was deterred from doing so. I feel sure that he is telling the truth, and that he would do nothing else, but I cannot say that for myself. I was not present at our proceedings on 27th November, but I have read a report of them. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, I have no personal interest in the matter. In what I am saying I am activated entirely by an altruistic desire to protect the rights of other hon. Members.
We do not have to go into all the technicalities raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. If we did we should be here all night. As I understand it, it is at least agreed that, for one reason or another, some things which the Minister said on 27th November must have deterred some hon. Members from putting down Amendments. I do not think that there is any dispute between the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who attempted to put down an Amendment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, although my hon. Friend has had disputes with other of my hon. Friends on the matter.
If that is the case, the argument for moving to report Progress is overwhelming, but having misled the Committee in relation to the Amendments that could be put down the Minister cannot get out of his difficulty by moving to report Progress today. We now begin to understand why the Minister commenced our proceedings today in this very novel manner. At first is was a mystery. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler), on a point of order—which turned out not to be a point of order—made what I thought was a rather rude comment. He referred to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley as Flanagan and Allen. If he was not being rude to the Minister and my hon. Friend, I feel that Flanagan and Allen might well feel that he was being rude to them.
My hon. Friend talked about the Minister and my hon. Friend as performing a duet—but what the Minister originally wanted was a solo. He wanted my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley to explain the matter. Perhaps he thought that some hon. Members would leave, thinking that we were merely discussing another part of the Bill, and that he would get what he


wanted in that way, after which he would be able to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley for being so diligent.
But it has not turned out like that. The Minister resorted to procedures which some hon. Members, with longer experience than I have, have never seen resorted to before. When the debate began the Secretary of State for War moved to report Progress. Presumably he had discussed the point with the Government, or with the Leader of the House and with the Whips. I am sure that he would have done that. He probably said, "In order to get out of this muddle we must adopt a rather different procedure." He hoped to get it through fairly quickly.

Mr. Profumo: indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: The Minister shakes his head. At any rate, he has not been disappointed in that. He hoped that he would get it through eventually. He knew that the procedure was novel, especially when he asked my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley to explain the matter in a manner which he, the Minister, hoped would be agreeable to the Committee.

Mr. Wigg: The initiation in the first instance came from me. I went to the Chairman of Ways and Means on Friday afternoon and told him what I had discovered. I also went to the Leader of the House, to the Government Whips and to some members of my own party, including some senior members. It was only because I understood it to be without precedent for a back bench Member to move to report Progress that the Government took the action they did. I hope that hon. Members will acquit me of any desire to be discourteous. I informed my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) of the position. I thought it of paramount importance—and I still do—that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee should understand the issues. That was why I went to the Chairman of Ways and Means.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I am not criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley for what he did on Friday, but I can only say, "Little man, you've had

a busy day." As a result of these researches the Government discovered that they would have to rectify the situation in some way. They found that they had unwittingly misled the Committee about Amendments which hon. Members could put down. If that is the case, then the situation could not possibly be rectified by having a short debate at the beginning of these proceedings, because that would have meant that hon. Members would still be denied the right to put down Amendments, although my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said that he eventually went along to put down Amendments because he had discovered how to do it.
It will still be the case that the only way in which hon. Members can put down what Amendments they wish is if this Motion is carried and we return after the Recess to discuss this Bill again.

Mr. S. Silverman: Not this Bill.

Mr. Foot: No, not this Bill. The Motion raises wider issues. At the moment I am dealing with the narrower question. On that, the Government cannot possibly rectify the position, which they have admitted and which was responsible for the Secretary of State starting our proceedings is such a novel fashion. In other words, his remedy does not cure the disease. If the disease is that some hon. Members have been deprived of their rights, then the remedy of proposing to report Progress at the beginning of these proceedings and to proceed with the Bill later does not cure the disease the Secretary of State has himself described.
The other aspect of the matter has been raised not only by hon. Members on this side of the House but even more strongly by Members opposite. The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) pleaded that the Government should withdraw the Bill. They have objected to the Bill all along. They say that here is further evidence of the muddle we have reached in considering the Bill. That is an additional argument for withdrawing the Bill, and it is a powerful one.
I do not expect the Secretary of State to withdraw the Bill, for he must consider the consequences. But, ever since


the Bill was introduced, it has been bitterly attacked from all sides, both by people for or against conscription or for or against the Government's defence policy. Some of the most powerful speeches this Session have come from right hon. and hon Members opposite. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) made a most powerful speech against the Bill. It has been ill-starred from the beginning, and now the Committee is in a hopeless tangle. The Government should proceed to carry their Motion in a Division, which is the best way to solve the problem and may be the simplest part of the whole affair.
It is an extraordinary way of dealing with the affairs of this Committee, particularly since the Secretary of State a moment or two ago admitted to me that he was expecting a long debate on the Motion. I said that he may have expected a short debate, but he shook his head. Presumably he expected a long one.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member is confusing his own issue. When he said that I had expected a short debate, I shook my head to indicate that I was expecting nothing. I want to clarify this situation. I was not expecting either a long or a short debate. When I shook my head I was giving an answer to the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I was not indicating whether I expected a long or a short debate.

Mr. Foot: I accept at once that the right hon. Gentleman did not know whether the debate would be long or short. But I did not think that it was a terrible accusation that he had expectations that the debate would be dealt with either slowly or quickly. It is undoubtedly the case that he has introduced an extremely novel manner of dealing with this situation. He has denied that, but I do not recall any circumstances in which a Government, at the beginning of Committee proceedings had asked an hon. Member in another part of the Committee to explain the general situation. I am not saying that there is anything wrong in that. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did it for the best of motives, probably thinking that it was the best way to cover

up what had gone wrong, but that has turned out not to be so.
However novel this procedure, one would have thought that the Government would have taken some precaution to see that they were well-advised on the matter. I would have thought that the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip would have been present for this discussion. I know that the Chief Whip has a rough time in having to listen to all the debates, but we should have their views—particularly those of the Leader of the House. Recalling the questions put to the Leader of the House during Questions on Business today, one would have thought he would have been present now.
At that time, the Opposition suggested—and I gather that it was also discussed through the usual channels last night—that it would be much better to take the debate on the Swiss loan today rather than tomorrow when it will interfere with a very important debate on Berlin. If the House gets into a muddle about procedure, then that is the sort of occasion when the Leader of the House should be present, and I am sorry that he is not here. It is deplorable that he is absent and cannot give such advice as he can. Nevertheless, the Government could have been rescued from this situation if they had accepted the advice given to them this afternoon or, we may deduct, through the usual channels last night.
One may deduce that it was proposed by the Opposition last night that the debate about the Swiss Loan should be taken today instead. Of course, I know that we are only borrowing £200 million or £300 million, which apparently does not matter much here or there to the Government, but we must discuss it some time. Thus, on two occasions the Government have had advice which would have got them out of this difficulty but have not taken it. If they had postponed consideration of this Bill until later, the Minister himself could have made a statement about what had gone wrong and about the unwittingly misleading character of what he had said. It could then have been put right.

Mr. Wigg: That is one of the problems. What had taken place had occurred in Committee. I discussed this with the Clerk of the House and found


that this had to be done in Committee. There was no other way of doing it but this.

Mr. Foot: That does not alter the main argument. Perhaps it reinforces it, because it shows that the muddle was even greater than supposed. But if the Government had postponed discussion of this Measure until after Christmas, it would at least have facilitated the rest of our business. It would have enabled my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley to have enlightened many more hon. Members on both sides of the House. He would probably have been more successful in enlightening them outside the Chamber than he usually is inside. The situation is that the Committee is in an appalling muddle. The Government have moved a Motion but are apparently trying to prevent us from carrying it. If they want to carry the Motion they can do so whenever they wish.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I apologise for intervening and must admit frankly that I have not heard the whole of the discussion. I am therefore reluctant to intervene. But I may be called on to vote in a short time. I wish to know how the Government can withdraw their own Motion in circumstances in which they have not yet tabled an Amendment, which could be tabled only on Report, in order to permit the discussion to continue? This discussion cannot continue beyond the Motion to report Progress and the vote on it, whatever may be the result of that Vote.

Mr. Foot: This discussion cannot continue. But some discussion can. It depends on what happens to the Government's proposal and the Motion to report Progress. That is what we are discussing. Nothing else can happen until we have disposed of the Government Motion. I am proposing the simplest way to dispose of it and assist with the rest of the Government business. It is to carry the Motion, and here I speak for all hon. Members on this side of the Committee. It is not often that I have the opportunity to speak for all hon. Members on this side of the Committee, but once I do have that opportunity I want to do so. Therefore it is unanimous.
What is worrying the Government? Why is the Secretary of State for War

looking so woried? The right hon Gentleman will carry this Motion with greater acclamation than anything which he has ever proposed in this Chamber before, and I congratulate him. He has moved the Motion in a Christmas spirit and we will accede to his wish. We are happy to comply with what he proposes. Standing Orders are not to prevent us. The Minister has it all his own way, and I congratulate him on the fact that this is the first occasion during the whole of the discussion on this Bill when he has commanded universal assent.

Mr. Denis Howell: I have sat through the whole of the discussion this afternoon, and I think that all hon. Members should feel obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for raising this matter, even though an extraordinary procedure has been adopted in order that this may be done. Despite the fact that in this Committee, and in the House of Commons, we are able to proceed in such matters with a degree of humour which is to be commended, this is an extremely serious Parliamentary matter and nothing less than the honour of the Government is involved.
I do not wish to speak for long—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because I do not think this is an appropriate opportunity to filibuster. It is an extremely serious matter with which the Government should deal. The Secretary of State for War told us that earlier, when we discussed the extent of the Money Resolution, had he had the opportunity he would at the end of that debate, had time not run out on him, drawn the strings together in the way in which he has done this afternoon.
It must be within the recollection of hon. Members who were present on that previous occasion that then the right hon. Gentleman was quite incapable of making the sort of statement that he made this afternoon, and I consider that an interesting factor. In fact, the Government have completely misled us. If we desire to know the extent to which we were misled, we have only to think of what the Secretary of State for War said this afternoon and cast our minds back to the sort of impasse in the Committee on the previous occasion.
Another matter which I consider of great gravity has not yet been raised


today. The Secretary of State when making his statement—I hope that this will be within the recollection of all hon. Members—said he had not intended to make this statement now, although my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley had drawn his attention to the situation. The Government were already aware of the fact before their attention was drawn to it, and it was the intention of the Government to proceed with this Bill and to put matters right when we reached Clause 7. That was what we were told by the Secretary of State. In other words, the Government were misleading the House, and not only that; they were prepared to go on misleading hon. Members until we reached Clause 7. When can there have been a more disgraceful state of affairs? We can all accept that the right hon. Gentleman may have originally misled the Committee in an innocent way. But having found that he was doing so, he was prepared to continue to mislead hon. Members until we reached Clause 7 of the Bill. I consider that the most disgraceful thing which I have ever come across since I have been a Member of Parliament. For that, if for no other reason, the Secretary of State has an obligation to take this Bill away and to do the honourable thing.
6.15 p.m.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). I attempted to raise a point of order earlier which turned out not to be a point of order but something which I could raise as a point in the debate. It is disgraceful that the Committee has been misled and that the Government are ready to continue to mislead hon. Members even further, and that we should not have the advantage of the presence of the Leader of the House who has specific powers and responsibilities. He should be present in order to put these matters right. This is a most shocking state of affairs.
It is also true that there is a Motion on the Order Paper to suspend the Rule at ten o'clock. Not only have we spent one day discussing this matter when the discussion was completely out of order, but we do not know for how long the Government intend to keep us tonight. It may be that we shall have a second day and carry on through the night dis

cussing matters which originated from the fact that the Committee has been misled.
There are only two courses open to the Committee. First, there is the honourable course, which has been urged upon the Government from both sides of the Committee, that the Bill should be taken away. I support the adoption of that course, because I believe that the Committee is entitled to time to consider the effect of the statement which the Minister has made. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a far-reaching statement which completely alters the whole of our perception of this Bill and proceed from that to a day, and possibly a night, of considering further Amendments before hon. Members have had an opportunity to discuss the far-reaching effects of the statement which he has made.
Hon. Members have their rights. We are entitled on such occasions to consider such matters, just as according to a time-honoured formula the Government from time to time, when presented with a situation which they have not previously had time to think about, indicate that they would like notice of it. We as ordinary back benchers, having had the matter presented to us for the first time by the Secretary of State—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Howell: I am very happy to observe a "two minute silence" on the occasion of the Leader of the House taking his seat in the Chamber. It is an extremely important matter—

Hon. Members: Start again.

Mr. Howell: No, I do not want to start again. But I hope very much that the Leader of the House is in no doubt at all that we consider this a matter which involves the honour of the Government; that we have been misled and that the Government proposed to continue misleading us had they not been caught out by the vigilance of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. The whole think is a pretty shocking exercise in Parliamentary democracy. I will now continue on the point I was making.
In my view, this Measure should be taken back because of the effect of the statement made by the Minister which


hon. Members have had no time to consider. Now there is an entirely new interpretation of the Finance Clause, and we are entitled to consider the effect of that interpretation on any Amendment which we might like to put down. We are entitled to consider its effect not only on Clause 1 (1), which we have already disposed of, but on the rest of that part of the Bill which we are likely to dispose of tonight, bearing in mind that there is a Motion on the Order Paper to suspend the Rule. That seems to me the only honourable course for the Government to take.
I wish to be fair and to say that there is one alternative to a Motion to report Progress. It is that we might be able to put down on Report those Amendments which we have been prevented from putting down so far. That seems to me a possibility that might be in the Government's mind.
If some of my hon. Friends are right and we cannot do that, my argument is even stronger, but even if we can do it this is a most disgraceful course of action to urge upon the Committee—that on Report we should discuss far-reaching Amendments of principle and of a character which we have been precluded from putting on the Order Paper so far. I am delighted to see the Leader of the House now here. No doubt he has been given information by now. It is a serious situation when every speaker unanimously from every part of the Committee is urging that the Bill should now be taken away. I urge the Government to take the only honourable course open to them in the circumstances.

Mr. Grimond: I do not want to take up the further time of the Committee in paying compliments to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), but we owe him a great debt, and if it were in order to do so a Motion might well be moved to put him in charge of the Bill. It would save a great deal of time all round. What we must have from the Secretary of State is a clear explanation of what the day's proceedings have all been about. If what happened on the evening of the 27th November was not all that important and if, although the Secretary of State was quite wrong in what he said, this could have been cured

in the course of the Committee stage, why was the Motion now before us ever moved? Why have we been asked to spend hours debating it? No one wants to be unkind to the hon. Member for Dudley, but if this is a Christmas present for him or a bonne bouche for his behaviour in Committee that may be all right, but it is something quite new in Parliamentary procedure.
I imagine, however, that the Motion was moved because the Secretary of State admits that he was wrong on the 27th and that it did make a difference and that it mattered. If it mattered, why did it matter? We have been told by certain hon. Members one reason why it mattered. I cannot say that I have been itching for weeks to put Amendments on the Order Paper and have been misled by the statement which the Secretary of State made, but other hon. Members have said that they were misled. If, therefore, the Secretary of State admits that what he said was wrong and that this is an important matter and that one of the reasons why it is important is that the Committee was prevented from doing its job, because certain hon. Members were misled and Amendments were not put down, I hope that he will follow his Motion through and that we shall indeed report Progress.
When this matter was first introduced into Parliament, it was said to be one of some urgency. On Second Reading the Secretary of State linked it with the situation in Berlin. If the situation in Berlin will be seriously affected by progress on this Bill it is extremely alarming. If the Bill is a contribution to the solution of the Berlin crisis, none of us can go away for Christmas feeling very happy. If weeks go by and we make no progress today—which is by no means certain—and the Bill is in such a muddle, it is not likely to reach the Statute Book until a solution of the Berlin crisis, as I hope, will have made considerable progress. Is it to go out of this Committee that in a serious international crisis one of the great contributions of the British Government is to introduce this Bill, with the object of saving the situation in Berlin?

Mr. S. Silverman: Their only contribution.

Mr. Grimond: Is this to be the Government's contribution and then it turns out that they have hopelessly misunderstood the Money Resolution?

Mr. Paget: In view of the many brickbats which have been flying towards the Minister, we should thank him at least for having moved this Motion. It was at any rate an attempt to put right where he had gone wrong. It was a gesture of repentance, though in fairness one ought to say there are two sorts of repentance. There is the repentance when one finds that one has done wrong, and there is the repentance when one finds that one has been caught. In the Minister's case I think it is the second sort, because he has since told us that had he riot been caught we should not have heard about this until we came to Clause 7—which would have been too late.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is there not a third form of repentance which is very relevant, namely, deathbed repentance?

Mr. Paget: I would not go so far in controversy as to wish the right hon. Gentleman that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) made a very remarkable discovery, although it was a discovery which resembled another famous discovery of this century, that of Professor Einstein, which even after it was made, save to a few initiates, did not cause the matter to become any more comprehensible. It is therefore with a certain diffidence, and subject always to my hon. Friend's further instruction, that I seek to indicate what I think is the real issue and one which does not divide the Committee, because we have had so much support on both sides.
The issue seems to me to be this. It is common ground on both sides that the Bill inflicts grave injustice. Everybody is agreed on that. When we drafted our Amendments we sought to provide that financially as much compensation as possible in bonuses and in other forms should be given to those who had suffered the injustice. That seemed to be a principle for which the Bill had not provided and on which it could not be radically improved.

Whether these Amendments, which sought to bring in a variety of forms of financial compensation for the injustice suffered, were in order depended upon whether money spent under the Bill was spent under the Prerogative or under Statute. If it were spent under Statute, our Amendments would have been in order, and if under the Prerogative they would not have been in order.
The Minister, when he said that it was a question of tidying up some ends, was a good deal less than candid with the Committee. It was not a question of tidying up ends. This is a highly complicated subject and I am not seeking to blame the right hon. Gentleman, but in the course of the debate on the Financial Resolution he did not just leave things vague he quite categorically misinformed us.
6.30 p.m.
If the Minister wants to know, I can go to the various passages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has done. There is a whole series of them. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The point my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour was trying to explain was that the cost, in so far as any cost arises out of this Bill, will either be paid for under existing Army Estimates already passed or will come under the Army Estimates for next year.
The point is that my hon. Friend is dealing with the Resolution as set down here and which he has explained, and that the money which is defence costs is borne on the Army Estimates.
The right hon. Gentleman also stated:
The position is that the Money Resolution covers everything which is new expenditure.
A little further down he said:
As the Committee knows, the legal basis for all Army pay is the Royal Warrant, which entitles us to make payment.
Again, a little further on:
Perhaps I may give an example. Some months ago we started a different sort of bounty for a different sort of reserve—the Army Emergency Reserve, Category I. This was done after the Army Estimates last year, but we did not need a Money Resolution for it.
The Minister went on:
This part of the Bill which we are now discussing, the part which might attract the bounty for a different sort of reserve, will also not come under the Money Resolution but will come under the Royal Warrant which takes regard of pay, and any funds which are needed for the next Army Estimates will be carried


on existing Army Estimates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 184–92.]
It is common ground that these statements were wrong. The Minister having misled the House, and that having been found, apparently, even before my hon. Friend's discoveries, I feel that the position would have been very serious indeed had it been left until we reached Clause 7.
Again I would join, as I have done very often before, in congratulating my hon. Friend. When the unfortunate weather conditions made it impossible for him to perform one public duty and he returned to make this discovery we can, perhaps, feel that proud Cortez on a peak in Darien was not more delighted by what he saw than was my hon. Friend.
This, indeed, was the occasion when, beyond an argument, beyond any juggling with figures or beyond any prevarication my hon. Friend was the one man in step and everyone else was out of step. Indeed, the only point in my hon. Friend's speech which I a little doubted was when he said that he was surprised to find that he was the only person who was right. That is not something that has ever surprised him. It may have delighted him, but not surprised him; at any rate, it was no small achievement.
That having been said, let us look where we get from here. The position of the Minister seems to me to be just a little like that of a man I once defended for stealing ducks. We had a success. The man was acquitted. The jury came to the conclusion that there was not any criminal intent. I remember that when the verdict came, the man said to me, "Now do I get the ducks?"
We acquit the right hon. Gentleman of criminal intent, but we do not feel that he should get the ducks and, in this context, the ducks are represented by the right hon. Gentleman being able to go on with the Bill without the very proper and important Amendments being put down, which his misinformation prevented, and which the Table really have to follow up because, of course, when we get a Financial Resolution in this form, it is not conclusive as to the relevance of the Amendments. That only emerges when we find whether

it comes from Statute, which can be amended, or from the Prerogative, which cannot. When the Minister has said that it is Prerogative, we are prevented from doing that.
What should we do about it now? I believe that the right thing would be to allow this Motion to go through; to adjourn, and to allow the Government an opportunity to put in order what, after all, is not a very happy Bill or one with which they can be very satisfied. But, at least, even if the Government are not willing to do that, I suggest that we should do go very far tonight. That is to say, we certainly ought not to go beyond the point at which we should be prevented from putting down any Amendments of this sort. Therefore Clause 1, at any rate, should remain open so that further Amendments can be put to it by the time we conclude our proceedings tonight, and as there are a very large number of Amendments I do not feel that that is a very great deal to ask.

Mr. Profumo: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say something further. This has obviously been a very valuable discussion because we are, at any rate, clearer about the Money Resolution. The reason I went through this rather strange procedure was purely because I was aware, not that I had said anything wrong on the Money Resolution, but that what I said had been inconclusive. I had not said enough.
I was not in any way aware of the fact that any hon. Member on either side had felt inhibited about putting down any Amendment as the result of being misled by what I had said during the discussion on the Money Resolution. I wanted to be quite certain that when we discussed the matter again, which would have been on Clause 7, I would be able, as I said earlier today, to draw the threads together. There is nothing shocking about that.
It was only when I became aware from a conversation I had with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—and if any other hon. Member had told me this I should have taken just the same action—that he considered, but only considered, that he had been inhibited from putting down Amendments because of a misconception of what had been said,


that I agreed that I would take this very first opportunity to try to put what I would have done later in perspective to the Committee—

Mr. Allaun: It is too late now.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that it is too late now. I understood that if the hon. Member for Dudley or any other hon. Member apart from myself had at this moment sought to move such a Motion you, Sir Gordon, would automatically have had to reject it. We could have done it on points of order, but I think that that would have been even more confusing. But since our joint intention—as I know the hon. Member for Dudley felt—was to try to put the matter in perspective, I think we can both be acquitted of discourtesy in raising the matter like this.
There is nothing wrong with the Money Resolution—that must be clear—and the more we discuss this the more in danger we are of getting to where we were the other night, with people being confused. The Money Resolution is drawn perfectly well. It finishes up, as has already been mentioned, by saying
…so provided under any other Act
It is, therefore, drawn perfectly correctly.
Perhaps I was not clear enough at the time, but I do not believe—and I have read the debate through again and again—that I was, in fact, incorrect when I spoke during the discussion on the Money Resolution. When reading such a debate as that, one has to realise that every intervention I made was in reply to an hon. Member's point or comment. Here I may have made a mistake. Perhaps it would have been better for me to have allowed everyone to speak who wished to, and then to have intervened, but because the time was short it seemed to me right to intervene as each Member made his point. One therefore has to read what I said against exactly what had been said by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen before.
Some hon. Members, though not the hon. Member for Dudley, seem to think that as a result of what I said about the Royal Prerogative and other things, and what others had said, the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart)

—to which, incidentally, hon. Members opposite had put down an Amendment—was out of order because the Clerks did not understand it. That is not the case.
That Amendment sought to incur further expenditure under this Measure—it would have been an added expenditure—and since the Money Resolution relates only to expenditure under other Acts the case is wholly different—[Interruption] I think that what I am saying is, generally speaking the point—is wholly different from what the hon. Member for Dudley has sought now to do. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, of course, in suggesting means, as he has done, of trying to provide some sort of bounty for those retained under Clause 1.
These National Service men can be regarded only as Regular soldiers and, therefore, under the Royal Prerogative. The point that I want the Committee to understand is that, whatever they may feel about the inhibitions on putting down Amendments, I was absolutely and entirely correct in what I said about the Royal Prerogative governing Regular soldiers. There is no question at all about it.
I want to say to the Committee that so far nothing has gone wrong because, so far, we have been entirely discussing Regular soldiers, National Service soldiers who are whole-time soldiers under Clause 1, and therefore any Amendment would have been out of order unless in the way that the hon. Gentleman has sought to put this down. The hon. Gentleman said that the moment that they reach their two years' service they cease to be Regular soldiers, and what we are really doing is to recall a number of reservists, although there is only a momentary gap.

Mr. Wigg: I say that these men whom the right hon. Gentleman will recall under Clause 1 would, for the most part, if he had not recalled them, have become, one day after completion of their two years, part-time members of the Territorial Army. What I have in mind is perfectly plain. As the right hon. Gentleman will see if he reads Clause 3 (1), they are part-time members of the Territorial Army and therefore I deem them, in order to give them a


bounty, which I think that they ought to get, members of the Territorial Army for that purpose.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Profumo: I understand that that is what the hon. Gentleman is deeming them to be, because he suggests that after two years, if it were not for this Bill, they would be in one of the reserves, the A.E.R. or the Territorial Army. But, in point of fact, that is not the case for if he and other hon. Members will look at the wording of the Bill they will see that Clause 1 (1) states:
…where…any person…is in army service…the Secretary of State may…retain that person in army service for such term not exceeding…
That is what we are doing by this Bill. It covers various different subjects, and that is why we did not take the National Service Act because that concerns the other Services too. This Bill, if it becomes law, gives power to retain National Service men in the Army, and, therefore, in my submission, they continue to be Regular soldiers and are covered by the Prerogative.
Several hon. Members—including the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) who after all has held my post—suggested that I ought to know more about this. I am sure that he must recall the problem of how to get Supplementary Estimates, because he must have had to deal with it in his time. It has been suggested that hon. Members might have been busily putting down Amendments if they had not been misled by me. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw said that I had misled the Committee. Other hon. Members said that they would have put down several Amendments. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) was perfectly honest and said that he had not really thought of it. [Interruption.] I fail to notice that the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw has put his name to this Amendment, and yet he has had time to do it.
It does not seem to me that hon. Members have, so far, been really affected.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is for the Committee to decide.

Mr. Profumo: It is for the Committee to decide. I was only saying that, up

to the present, everything we have done has been perfectly in order, however the Committee may have misunderstood me or the hon. Member for Dudley, and will be so until we reach the end of Clause 1. I suggest, therefore—

Mr. Denis Howell: Go no further tonight.

Mr. Profumo: That is for the Committee to decide. I merely make this suggestion. As hon. Members seem to be in some doubt as to what the truth is in regard to the conditions of the Money Resolution, I think that they might first read what I said in HANSARD, when they will become immediately aware of the situation: since I have tried to make not a correction but an amplification of what I said the other day.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Says you.

Mr. Profumo: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not listen.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I did not understand it.

Mr. Profumo: Then the right hon. Gentleman can read it. Perhaps he can read better than he can listen.
This is the suggestion I make. I will give an undertaking to the Committee, if we can make some progress, that there will be an opportunity during the Report stage for hon. and right hon. Members to put down any such Amendments as they would have been putting down had they known about this. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will give the undertaking—

Mr. Gordon Walker: rose—

Mr. Profumo: Let me finish.

Mr. Allaun: It is too late.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order. This is a House of Commons matter, Sir Gordon. What right has the Minister to presume the prerogative of the Chair and give us undertakings as to what Amendments will be accepted on Report?

The Chairman: I understood the Minister to say that any hon. Member could put down an Amendment.

Mr. Profumo: Yes. Let HANSARD speak.

Mr. Howell: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. In the hearing of everyone, the Minister said that he would give an undertaking that we could have our Amendments put down. Apart from the basic premise on which that is based, which concedes the whole of our case, clearly the right hon. Gentleman is taking to himself your duty, Sir Gordon.

The Chairman: It is for the Chair to decide which Amendments are selected.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. The right hon. Gentleman has made an offer to the Committee that on Report he will permit certain Amendments to be put down. Quite apart from the propriety of that way of putting it—though I understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant to say—there is the point that so far there have been no Amendments to the Bill, and, in view of the possibility that there may not be any Amendments to the Bill by the time we reach the end of the Committee stage, there may be no Report stage. If there are no Amendments, there will be no Report stage and the Minister's offer will, therefore, be completely ineffective.

Mr. Profumo: I am sorry. Hon. Members must not jump to conclusions before I have had time to explain. What I said to the Committee—HANSARD will bear me out—was that I would give this undertaking. I said that I would give opportunity for hon. Members to put down Amendments on Report. [HON MEMBERS: "That is not for the Minister."] Please may I make this point? It must be for me to give such an undertaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If there is no Report stage, no hon. Member would have a chance of putting down an Amendment on Report. I give an undertaking that, even if there are no other Amendments, I will see that there is a Report stage even if I put down a Government Amendment for the purpose. Then there will be one and, if there is then a Report stage—

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is it not the fact that any Amendment at the Report stage involving expenditure would necessitate the Bill being recommitted to Committee? I ask you, Sir Gordon, whether such a Motion would (a) be necessary, and (b), if it were put

down by an hon. Member on this side, would it be called? Would it not be far better if such an Amendment were to be put down at all, that it should be put down by the Government?

The Chairman: It is not for me in this Committee to deal with the Report stage.

Mr. Profumo: rose—

Mr. Paget: If it is not for you in this Committee to deal with the Report stage, is it in order for the Minister to do so?

The Chairman: The Minister may make references to the subsequent Report stage.

Mr. Wigg: The Minister will help the Committee and himself if he will give an undertaking that he will accept the Amendment I have put down to deal with this matter. Then, of course, we can dispose of it.

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. I am giving an undertaking to the Committee that I will arrange—[HON MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman cannot."] Yes, I will arrange either to accept some Amendment in the course of our discussions, or, if I am not able to do that, to put down some simple Government Amendment which will enable us to have a Report stage, when hon. Members can put down any Amendments they want. This seems perfectly fair and, in view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish us to be confused on this. The type of Amendments which we have in mind, as I think I explained, are Amendments which would involve spending money under the Acts. On Report, that would involve a Motion to recommit. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to recommit the Bill to Committee? If so, since we are in Committee, why not deal with it here when we reassemble?

Mr. Profumo: If the hon. and learned Gentleman puts down an Amendment, we can decide. I am only trying to give the Committee an opportunity for doing these things during the Report stage. It


seems to me that, meanwhile, we could continue our discussion.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I take it that the Minister is now offering undertakings to the Committee with a view to having our permission to withdraw his Motion.

The Chairman: No. The Committee has refused him permission to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has given undertakings which he cannot possibly carry out without making a farce of the whole of our proceedings.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Loughlin: It is a point of order, Sir Gordon.

The Chairman: It is not.

Mr. Loughlin: But, Sir Gordon—

Division No. 38.]
AYES
[6.54 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gower, Raymond


Aitken, W. T.
Cooke, Robert
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Allason, James
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Arbuthnot, John
Cordeaux, Lt.- Col. J. K.
Green, Alan


Atkins, Humphrey
Cordle, John
Gresham Cooke, R.


Balniel, Lord
Corfield, F. V.
Grimston, Sir Robert


Barber, Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Gurden, Harold


Barlow, Sir John
Coulson, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Barter, John
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bell, Ronald
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Cunningham, Knox
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Berkeley, Humphry
Curran, Charles
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Dance, James
Hastings, Stephen


Biffen, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hay, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Deedes, W. F.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bingham, R. M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hendry, Forbes


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hiley, Joseph




Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bishop, F. P.
Doughty, Charles
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Bossom, Clive
du Cann, Edward
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bourne-Arton, A.
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hocking, Philip N.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Emery, Peter
Holland, Philip


Boyle, Sir Edward
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hollingworth, John


Brewis, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Hopkins, Alan


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hornby, R. P.


Brooman-White, R.
Farr, John
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Fell, Anthony
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Finlay, Graeme
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Buck, Antony
Foster, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bullard, Denys
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
James, David


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Burden, F. A.
Freeth, Denzil
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gardner, Edward
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gibson-Watt, David
Joseph, Sir Keith


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Gilmour, Sir John
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Cary, Sir Robert
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Kershaw, Anthony


Channon, H. P. G.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Kirk, Peter


Chataway, Christopher
Goodhart, Philip
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhew, Victor
Leather, E. H. C.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Denis Howell: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Gordon. You guided the Committee a few moments ago by telling us that the Committee had refused permission to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion. Within no more than seconds of his asking leave to withdraw the Motion and being refused, we have the Closure moved. Is it in order to have the Closure moved so soon after permission to withdraw has been refused by the Committee?

The Chairman: It is quite in order.

The Committee divided: Ayes 243, Noes 172.

Leburn, Gilmour
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Stodart, J. A.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Litchfield, Capt. John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Tapsell, Peter


Longbottom, Charles
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Longden, Gilbert
Pitman, Sir James
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Loveys, Walter H.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter &amp; Moss Side)


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Pott, Percivall
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Teeling, William


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple, John M.


MacArthur, Ian
Prior, J. M. L.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


McLaren, Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


MacLeod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Pym, Francis
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Macmillan,Rt. Hn.Harold (Bromley)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ramsden, James
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Peter
Turner, Colin


Maginnis, John E.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rees, Hugh
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marlowe, Anthony
Renton, David
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Marshall, Douglas
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ridsdale, Julian
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Rippon, Geoffrey
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Mawby, Ray
Roots, William
Walker, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Ward, Dame Irene


Mills, Stratton
Russell, Ronald
Webster, David


Montgomery, Fergus
St. Clair, M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Morgan, William
Sharpies, Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Shaw, M.
Wise, A. R.


Nabarro, Gerald
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wolridge-Gordon, Patrick


Neave, Airey
Smith, Dudley (Br'mf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Worsley, Marcus


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Smithers, Peter
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Noble, Michael
Spearman, Sir Alexander



Nugent, Sir Richard
Stanley, Hon. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Stevens, Geoffrey
Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)





NOES


Ainsley, William
Fletcher, Eric
Kelley, Richard


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Kenyon, Clifford


Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
King, Dr. Horace


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Lawson, George


Bence, Cyril
Galpern, Sir Myer
Ledger, Ron


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Benson, Sir George
Ginsburg, David
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Blackburn, F.
Gooch, E. G.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Blyton, William
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P, C.
Lipton, Marcus


Boardman, H.
Gourlay, Harry
Logan, David


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Greenwood, Anthony
Loughlin, Charles


Boyden, James
Grey, Charles
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McInnes, James


Brockway, A. Fenner
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
McLeavy, Frank


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W-)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Manuel, A. C.


Callaghan, James
Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mason, Roy


Chapman, Donald
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mayhew, Christopher


Collick, Percy
Hayman, F. H.
Mellish, R. J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Healey, Denis
Mendelson, J. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Millan, Bruce


Cronin, John
Hilton, A. V.
Milne, Edward J.


Crosland, Anthony
Holman, Percy
Mitchison, G. R.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Holt, Arthur
Monslow, Walter


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Houghton, Douglas
Moody, A. S.


Davies, S.O. (Merthyr)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mort, D. L.


Diamond, John
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mulley, Frederick


Dodds, Norman
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, Harold


Driberg, Tom
Hunter, A. E.
Oram, A. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Owen, Will


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Padley, W. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Paget, R. T.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jeger, George
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John


Evans, Albert
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Fitch, Alan
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pentland, Norman







Plummer, Sir Leslie
Skeffington, Arthur
Thornton, Ernest


Popplewell, Ernest
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Prentice, R. E.
Small, William
Wade, Donald


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Probert, Arthur
Snow, Julian
Warbey, William


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Sorensen, R, W.
Weitzman, David


Randall, Harry
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Rankin, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitlock, William


Reynolds, G. W.
Steele, Thomas
Wigg, George


Rhodes, H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wilkins, W. A.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stonehouse, John
Willey, Frederick


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stones, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshawe)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Rogers, G, H. R, (Kensington, N.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Ross, William
Symonds, J. B.
Woof, Robert


Short, Edward
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)



Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 




Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Peel.

Question put accordingly, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again:—

Division No. 39.]
AYES
[7.4 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allen, Scholefieid (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, Norman


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Healey, Denis
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Popplewell, Ernest


Bence, Cyril
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Benson, Sir George
Holt, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Blyton, William
Howard, Denis (Small Heath)
Randall, Harry


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Boyden, James
Hunter, A. E-
Rhodes, H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, George
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, 8.)
Short, Edward


Callaghan, James
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Chapman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Skeffington, Arthur


Collick, Percy
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Small, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr Horace
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cronin, John
Lawson, George
Snow. Julian


Crosland, Anthony
Ledger, Ron
Sorensen, R. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie


Diamond, John
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Steele, Thomas


Dodds, Norman
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart Michael (Fulham)


Driberg, Tom
Logan, David
Stonehouse, John


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Loughlin, Charles
Stones, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McInnes, James
Stross, Dr.Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Symonds, J. B.


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Fernyhough, E-
Manuel, A. C.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Fitch, Alan
Mapp, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Fletcher, Eric
Mason, Roy
Thorpe, Jeremy


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wade, Donald


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mellish, R. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J.
Warbey, William


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Mitchison, G. R.
Whitlock, William


Ginsburg, David
Monslow, Walter
Wigg, George


Gooch, E. G.
Moody, A. S,
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mort, D. L.
Willey, Frederick


Gourlay, Harry
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Greenwood, Anthony
Neal, Harold
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, Charles
Oram, A. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, Will
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, w. (Exchange)
Padley, W. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Grimond, J.
Paget, R. T.



Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parker, John
Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Redhead.

The Committee divided: Ayes 171, Noes 242.

NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Aitken, W. T.
Gower, Raymond
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Allason, James
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Arbuthnot, John
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R-
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Atkins, Humphrey
Green, Alan
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Balniel, Lord
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Barber, Anthony
Grimston, Sir Robert
Peel, John


Barlow, Sir John
Gurden, Harold
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barter, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pitman, Sir James


Bell, Ronald
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Got &amp; Fhm)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pott, Percivall


Berkeley, Humphry
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bevins, Rt. Hon, Reginald
Hastings, Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biffen, John
Hay, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bingham, R. M.
Hendry, Forbes
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Birch, Rt, Hon. Nigel
Hiley, Joseph
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bishop, P. P.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Hills, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bossom, Clive
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)



Bourne-Anton, A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ramsden, James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Hocking, Philip N.
Rawlinson, Peter


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Brewis, John
Hollingworth, John
Rees, Hugh


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hopkins, Alan
Renton, David


Brooman-White, R.
Hornby, R. P.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Howard John (Southampton, Test)
Ridsdale, Julian


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hughes Harlet, Vice-Admiral John
Rippon, Geoffrey


Bryan, Paul
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roots, William


Buck, Antony
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Bullard, Denys
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Ronald


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
James, David
St. Clair, M-


Burden, F. A.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Sharples, Richard


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shaw, M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntfd &amp; Chiswick)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Kerens, Cdr. J. S.
Smithers, Peter


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Channon, H. P. G.
Kershaw, Anthony
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Chataway, Christopher
Kirk, Peter
Stevens, Geoffrey


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cooke, Robert
Leather, E. H. C.
Stodart, J. A.


Cooper-Key, Sir Netlt
Leburn, Gilmour
Stoddart-Scott, Sir Malcolm


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cordle, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Corfield, F. V,
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Costain, A. P.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tapsell, Peter


Coulson, Michael
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Longbottom, Charles
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, F. H. (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Crowder, F. P.
Loveye, Walter H.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Cunningham, Knox
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Teeling, William


Curran, Charles
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Deedes, W. F,
McLaren, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Doughty, Charles
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Drayson, G, B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


du Cann, Edward
Maddan, Martin
Turner, Colin


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Emery, Peter
Markham, Major Sir Frank
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs, Evelyn
Marlowe, Anthony
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Errington, Sir Eric
Marshall, Douglas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Marten, Nell
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Farr, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Felt, Anthony
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Walker, Peter


Finlay, Graeme
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Foster, John
Mills, Stratton
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Montgomery, Fergus
Whitelaw, William


Freeth, Denzil
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gardner, Edward
Morgan, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wise, A. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Nabarro, Gerald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gilmour, Sir John
Neave, Airey
Worsley, Marcus


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Nugent, Sir Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Goodhart, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Noble.

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order. In the very special circumstances in which we find ourselves and of which you are aware, Sir Gordon, would you be prepared in principle to accept manuscript Amendments? It is now clear that hon. Members on both sides would wish to table Amendments which they have been deterred from doing previously owing to being misled by the Minister. Also, it is clear that the undertaking given by the Secretary of State is not worth very much because he did not give a further undertaking that he would, if necessary, recommit the Bill. Amendments on Report suggesting that we should spend more money would be out of order unless the Bill were recommitted. It may be that that was an implied commitment, but it was not an express commitment.
Since there is now wider scope for Amendments than we thought, and since the undertaking given by the Secretary of State about the Report stage does not go far enough and in any case does not concern you, Sir Gordon, in your present capacity and cannot be taken into account by you, I wonder whether you will accept manuscript Amendments in principle. Obviously, you would select some and reject others, but in principle would you accept manuscript Amendments during further stages of the Bill?

The Chairman: It is generally undesirable to accept manuscript Amendments, but I should be prepared to consider them.
The first Amendment is No. 8, and with it will be discussed Nos. 11, 13, 19, 21, 22, 28, 30, 31, 33—

Mrs. Barbara Castle: On a point of order. I gather from what you have just said, Sir Gordon, that you do not intend to call my Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. Will you give the reason why they have not been accepted?

The Chairman: I am afraid that I cannot give reasons for the non-selection of Amendments.

Mrs. Castle: Further to that point of order. May I point out to you, Sir Gordon, that we are meeting in rather special circumstances and unusual conditions which I think warrant an explanation or, at any rate, an

assurance, since I have reason to know that the decision not to select my Amendments was taken before the explanation of the Secretary of State concerning the Money Resolution was given.

The Chairman: The explanation of the Secretary of State does not affect the matter in any way. The Amendments were not selected. We cannot discuss that.

Mrs. Castle: Further to that point of order. Since the decision not to select my Amendments was taken before the position concerning the Money Resolution was made clear to hon. Members, to the Chair or anybody else, may I at any rate have an assurance—

The Chairman: The position about the Money Resolution is always clear to the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: That is another aspect altogether.

Mr. Reynolds: rose—

Mrs. Castle: Are you in fact saying, Sir Gordon, that the revelations which came from the Minister were always known to the Chair and to the Table?

The Chairman: What I am saying is that when we considered these Amendments we had the Money Resolution before us, quite irrespective of any argument in the House. The Money Resolution is what decided our selection.

Mr. Hale: Would you, Sir Gordon, be prepared to accept a Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," so that Her Majesty's Ministers may consider the situation which has arisen in which all Her Majesty's Ministers present voted against a Motion moved by the Secretary of State for War? Surely this is a matter which Her Majesty's Ministers should be given an opportunity to consider. In view of the progress we have made since—

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the Committee has just decided against the Motion.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Further to the point of order


raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). First, it is necessary that my understanding of the matter should be correct. Am I right in understanding that you, Sir Gordon, said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn that you had the Money Resolution before you when you were considering the Amendments which were tabled?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Thank you, Sir Gordon. That means that that happened before 27th November. I have the OFFICIAL. REPORT for 27th November in my hand, and, according to my understanding, the Minister's interpretation of the Money Resolution as stated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date was different—

The Chairman: The matter of the Minister's interpretation of the Money Resolution cannot be raised now. We are on another matter.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept that, Sir Gordon. No one can contest that.

Mr. Ross: With regret.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If I understood it correctly, the Minister's interpretation of the Money Resolution tonight was that it covers several other Acts of Parliament. When you, Sir Gordon, considered it you were confined to what was agreed on 27th November. If the Secretary of State for War puts a different construction on the Money Resolution, it means that, before we proceed, those who desire to table Amendments should have the opportunity—

The Chairman: That point does not arise. There is no difference of view about this. No Amendment has been ruled out of order by a false interpretation of the Money Resolution. The Amendments in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) have not been selected. We cannot go on discussing that.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I will keep precisely to the point that we are discussing. My understanding of a Money Resolution is that hon. Members are confined by the limits on financial expenditure imposed by it. If that is correct, the financial

expenditure under this Money Resolution as interpreted by the Secretary of State tonight is outside the limits agreed when the Committee considered it on 27th November. If that is so, the Committee should have the opportunity of moving Amendments on the basis of the new interpretation placed on it by the Minister.

The Chairman: That argument might have relevance had I ruled the hon. Lady's Amendment out of order. In fact, I did not select it.

Mr. Gordon Walker: May I briefly thank you, Sir Gordon, for what you said about manuscript Amendments and make it clear that we regard this only as an emergency measure? We are debating now, which we did not want to do, because we supported the Government's Motion. We presume that the undertaking by the Minister, in so far as it went, concerning the Report stage still holds.

Mr. Profumo: Certainly, that undertaking still holds. Regarding the right hon. Gentleman's earlier question, in so far as it is within my power—it is, of course, a matter for Mr. Speaker—the undertaking applies also to the recommittal.

Clause 1.—(RETENTION OF NATIONAL SERVICE MEN IN ARMY SERVICE.)

Mr. Reynolds: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end, to add:
(3A) This section shall not apply to any person who—
(a) was married at the time of his entry into army service as, or as the equivalent of, his whole-time service under the said Act of 1948; or
(b) is the sole supporter of a widowed mother; or
(c) during the course of his whole-time service under the said Act of 1948, or the equivalent, has dependants who are in receipt of national service grants.
After three hours' wasted time, I now find myself moving the first of the Amendments that we are dealing with today. As you have said, Sir Gordon, it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the subsequent Amendments which go with it. I hope to find myself in the fortunate position of moving an Amendment which the Secretary of State, to make sure that there will be a Report stage, will accept. I commend


our Amendment to him as one that is worthy of acceptance for other reasons also.
Neither the Committee nor the House has been told exactly what type of man will be retained under this form of selective service which the Government are trying to introduce. In various Defence White Papers from time to time, we have been told of shortages of various types of men and the Minister has told us that there are shortages in the teeth arms and in the tail. Nevertheless, we have before us in the Clause a form of selective service based entirely on the needs of the Army at a particular time and for a given period.
The intention of the group of Amendments which we are now discussing is to exempt from that selective service certain categories of people. The Amendment specifies three clearly-defined categories who should be exempted from this form of selective service. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) hopes to put a number of points of view on these three clearly-defined categories. The remaining Amendments deal with other special cases, particularly on hardship grounds, which, we believe, should be exempted from the selective service which the Minister and the Government are now trying to introduce.
I should like to go through some of the various categories and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will have a number of important points to make concerning them and others. The first category in our Amendment is men who were married at the time of commencing their Army Service. They will have spent two years away from home and from their wives and, in some cases, from their families. Now, they are to be called upon, in many cases, to serve for another six months. If anybody has to be withheld from his family for another six months, men in this category should be exempted.
In all these Amendments, we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of disagreeing completely with the whole principle of the selective service aspects of the Bill. To try to mitigate its effect on certain people, however, we have to try to make it even more selective. We would rather not have the Bill at all.

Our motives, which are of the best, are to try to exclude from the selective service aspects of the Bill cases which should be completely exempted.
A man who was married before he began his National Service, who already has had two years away from home and, perhaps, away from his family—or, if he spent six months in the United Kingdom first, has had perhaps eighteen months overseas—should not in the existing circumstances be expected to spend another six months undertaking Army service.
Some of these men, having completed apprenticeships, university courses or the like, may have been married for a year or two before entering the Army. Having spent two years doing their National Service, they may well wish to start families. In anticipation of being demobilised, some of them may have started families on the assumption that they would come out of the Army after April of next year. They may have made arrangements, not having a home of their own before commencing National Service, either to purchase or lease a house or flat for the time when they leave the Army. They have been ticking off the days on the calendar behind their beds. They have known for months that they must find a home for their wives and families when their National service finishes.
It takes twelve months or so to build a new house. It may be that a number of these men have houses being constructed for them or have already entered into agreements whereby they will become tenants under a lease lasting for several years at a considerable rent, which has to be paid nowadays to get a flat or a house, and they will not now be able to take advantage of the accommodation which they have obtained because they will be expected to serve another six months after their National Service. We believe that this category of man, particularly the man with a wife and family who was married before starting his National Service, should be excluded from the selective service aspects of the Bill.
Secondly, the Amendment embraces the National Service man who is the sole supporter of a widowed mother. Sometimes, in these circumstances, a


financial problem can be involved, but very often it is probably a psychological problem concerning the widowed mother. She feels that she is being unfairly treated in any event because her son and sole support has been taken away from her for a two-year period. She will have been looking forward to the day of her son's return and, almost like her son in the Army, she will have been ticking off the days on the calendar. The day on which he is due to finish his service will have been circled off and his mother expects to have him home. Now, however, she is in danger of finding that he is liable for another six months' service. On compassionate grounds alone, the Minister should be prepared to exempt this type of man from the selective service aspect.
The third category is men with dependants who are in receipt of National Service grants. Here, we come to the real hardship cases, mainly from a financial point of view. All these cases wall have been thoroughly investigated already by officers of the various public and charitable organisations. It will have been agreed that the financial circumstances of their dependants or families are such that, in addition to the ordinary National Service pay, a certain amount should be paid by way of National Service grant to avoid hardship occurring in a family or to a National Service man's dependants.
It has already been agreed, even without the Bill and this addition to the length of National Service, that in the cases where National Service grant is being paid, there is financial hardship. We ought to declare that this financial hardship should not be continued for a further six months. I realise that these men will go from National Service to Regular pay scales if they serve for another six months. Nevertheless, they have been suffering financial hardship for some time. We believe that they should now be excluded from further service under the Clause.
I come next to some of the categories which are not quite as tight as those specified in the first Amendment. I hope that whilst our subsequent Amendments, which are being discussed at the same time, are not to be moved or voted upon, the Minister will be prepared either to accept them or to introduce

appropriately worded Amendments of his own on Report. We are proposing that a man who was married before 1st December, 1961, before the Bill reached an advanced stage, should be excluded from the provisions of the Clause.
Here again, we are concerned with men who anticipated that they would finish their National Service in, say, April or May of next year. This may well have been one of the factors—I do not imagine that it was the most important factor, although it may well have been a factor—which led them to decide to get married in, say, October, November or December, 1961.
7.30 p.m.
Obviously, having taken that grave and important step, he will have had to make certain arrangements, and here again a problem arises. He has probably endeavoured to make arrangements to make sure that, when he comes out of the Army, housing accommodation will be available. He has probably arranged with his wife for the purchase of furniture and other things. Therefore there is a case for excluding him, along with the man who married before entering into National Service, from the provisions of this Clause.
Then there is the slightly more nebulous but still definable case of a man who had given notice to marry before 1st December, 1961, but who has not got married. The banns will have been called or notice given at the register office and it has been his honest intention to get married. He has given proper notice of it in the legal manner. We have provided in the Amendments that whilst he has given notice of marriage before 1st December, 1961, in order to be excluded he must get married before 1st April, 1962. Undoubtedly anyone who has given notice of marriage by 1st December, 1961, will in the vast majority of cases be getting married before 1st April, 1962.
In most cases the wedding date will have been arranged and the wedding guests invited to come to the service and to the feast that normally takes place. Some guests will have bought gifts already, apart from their Christmas shopping, and the honeymoon will have been arranged and hotel accommodation booked. In some cases a flat will have


been obtained by purchase or renting and furniture bought on hire purchase, in expectation of the fact that the prospective husband, a National Service man, in May or June of next year will have finished National Service and will have returned to his civilian occupation. Yet now, with all these arrangements made, he is faced with the prospect that even if he is able to get married he many not be able to meet his full financial commitments and will be away from his wife for six months longer than he expected when the original arrangements were entered into.
There is a further category which I admit is rather looser than the ones which I have mentioned so far. We claim that in cases where the individual National Service man or his dependants would suffer exceptional hardship there should be exception from the provisions of the Clause. I want to look at three items which I feel would come under this provision. First, and I have had an instance of this from one of my own constituents, there is the case of the family business—a small greengrocer's, a sweet and newspaper shop, or a builder's and decorator's—which has been struggling along, the father or brother keeping the business going for eighteen months or two years while the son or other brother has been completing his National Service.
Businesses of this kind can be carried on for a certain period by only one member of the family, but to have to carry on the business in the absence of a member of the family for a further period of six months might be beyond the capacity of the remaining member and of the business itself. It is quite possible that a National Service man who has a connection with a small family business and who is compelled to carry on for a further six months' National Service might find that the business had suffered so that when he has finally completed his service he has no job and no business to which to return.
Then there is the position of doctors, which makes a special case. I quote them primarily because the British Medical Association, which we are all fully aware is one of the best organised pressure groups in the country, has

given information about the financial position of doctors during National Service. I have no doubt that this is the type of case which can properly be put up for a number of other professional workers as well. The British Medical Association has pointed out that doctors are in two categories. Those in Category A were called up for National Service and were removed for two years from what the Association describes as a highly competitive civilian profession. They received during that two-year period lower pay than other members of the medical profession not called up, and now they are being told that they may well be compulsorily retained in the Forces for an extra six months or even, under Clause 2 to which some of these Amendments apply, may be recalled from their civilian occupation, to do six months' service in the Forces.
On the other hand, we have the doctor who is not called up, possibly a woman or a doctor who is domiciled overseas or even someone who is medically unfit or is excused to take up post-graduate training or on grounds of personal hardship. One doctor has been doing National Service for two years on much lower pay than his competitor in the National Health Service, who will be able to continue without fear of having to do six months, either added on or as a result of being called back into the Army, and is able to carry on uninterrupted with his civilian career.
It could be argued, and the B.M.A. definitely argues, that the doctor doing National Service can be said to suffer considerable financial hardship compared with the doctor who for one reason or another is not expected to do National Service. The B.M.A. actually suggests that a doctor should be paid a substantial gratuity if retained or recalled, and the Association points out that a doctor on short-service commission is paid a gratuity of £500 for each year of service. There is no doubt that the doctor—and this would apply to other professional workers—suffers financial hardship as compared with his fellow-doctor or some other person who is not called upon to do National Service. And now he is to be compelled to serve for a further six months.
Then there is the position of the young man who is doing National Service at the moment and who on 1st December applied for a university place for September of next year. He may well have submitted applications already to quite a large number of universities. He would have been finishing his National Service in July or August of next year in time to gain acceptance to start at the university the following September. At the moment, these young men have absolutely no guarantee that even if they are able to obtain a place at one of the universities they will not be forced to forgo that place because they are needed in the Army for a further six months.
Whilst they had expected to finish National Service in July or August, 1962, they will not finish until April, May or June, 1963. There is a definite case for saying that someone who has waited to go to a university and has done his National Service first, or who whilst doing his National Service has decided that he would like to go to a university and who has obtained a place, can be said to suffer considerable hardship which may last over the remaining period of his life if he is forced to give up that place because he is called up under Clause 1 or, under Clause 2, is compelled to go back to do a further six months' National Service. I hope that we can have some assurance, even if the actual Amendments are not accepted, that the classifications which I have mentioned will receive earnest and serious consideration by the Minister. I hope that if he is not able to accept some of the Amendments he will table similar ones of his own.
There are two other classifications in the Amendments, namely, the married man with children and the married man whose wife is at present pregnant or was pregnant at the time when he was asked to stay on for a further six months. In both instances I feel that there is a case for excluding that type of group, from the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2, though I admit that in the second instance advantage might well be taken of it.
Lastly, I refer to the group of people who have entered into serious and sometimes large financial commitments on the assumption that their National Ser

vice was to end at a given date. In many cases, these young men have decided to enter into hire-purchase contracts to buy furniture, assuming that they would leave the Army in May or June, 1962. However, it is more likely to affect young men buying houses, or flats, or new maisonettes for the time when they expect to leave the Army. Such a decision has to be taken, as I have explained, at least a year before the accommodation concerned is required. Believing that his National Service was to end in May or June, 1962, such a young man would already have entered into the financial commitments, having signed the mortgage and only awaiting the completion of the building and his leaving the Army before taking occupation.
He will be unable to get out of the financial commitments which he will have entered into in all good faith. He may not come out of the Army until towards the end of 1962, perhaps Christmas, 1962, instead of May or June, but during the whole of that six months he will have to meet the mortgage repayments. He may suffer financial hardship, and, although there are ways and means of easing it, a man taking that course, believing that he will have finished with the Army, only to find that because of the Government's muddle he now has to undergo some form of selective service because all the Government's calculations have been completely wrong, will suffer hardship. He will be in the onerous position of having to meet financial commitments with an income, even though at the Regular rate of pay, which is lower than that which he expected when he made the commitment. In addition, he will be away from his wife and family for a further six months.
In the cases I have mentioned—and my hon. Friends will no doubt have many others which could be counted within the category of hardship, and particularly financial hardship—it could be argued that the system should be even more selective, selective on a framework rather different from that which the Minister has in mind. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted, for it will enable us to have a Report stage and not be kept in suspense, until we reach Clause 7 or 8, about whether we are to have a Report stage. We will know that the undertaking given to us is perfectly safe and that we will have a


Report stage, and at the same time we will get rid of some of the hardship which will otherwise undoubtedly occur in the operation of Clauses 1 and 2.

Dr. Alan Glyn: One cannot but agree in substance with what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has said, but if there are many categories of people who are to be removed from the provisions of the Bill, to some extent that will detract from the value of the Bill itself. No one will deny that there are many hard luck cases—people going to universities, medical men and others. But much the easiest way to deal with them is not to lay down particular categories which can be exempt, but to leave it to the Minister to decide on each individual case whether it is a genuine hardship case.
During the war that was done successfully, and anybody who had an extremely good case on compassionate or other grounds was released at an earlier date. By far the easiest way of dealing with what can be described only as selective conscription would be to use the basis of individual hardship. If we exclude wide categories of people, we can go on ad infinitum. The hon. Member for Islington, North spoke of those buying houses and undertaking other financial commitments, and I entirely agree with him about such cases; but we should approach it in the other way, leaving the Minister to decide these questions, having taken all factors into consideration and having had the case investigated through S.S.A.F.A., or some other organisation. For those reasons, I could not possibly support the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I hope that the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) will change his mind. He has been a Regular soldier and he knows how delicate a thing discipline is. He also knows, if I may use a hackneyed phrase, that the Army is as strong as its weakest link, and that if we tamper with discipline we are setting in motion influences which might have far-reaching consequences.
Up to this time, with great wisdom successive Governments have left the question of who is to go into the Armed Forces as an entirely civilian matter. A

man who chooses to appeal on conscientious or other grounds goes before the hardship tribunal and goes as a civilian. Whether he is rich or poor, clever or stupid, he goes with absolutely equal rights to appear before a group of fellow citizens who are to take the decision.
This is the great attraction of the American system of the selected draft. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and I have gathered what information we could about this system. One of the things which is boasted about it is that it is a man's friends and neighbours who decide whether he shall go in. It is far better to decide on that basis than to leave it to the arbitrary decision of the Minister.
I ask hon. Members to ponder on what the Secretary of State has already told us. He is to take away from a man's commanding officer—the officer to whom he looks and who is responsible for his care and for organising his unit and for providing his leave and administering justice and, in the last analysis, leading him if it comes to the final purpose for which the Army exists, and who will command him as a fighting soldier—the right to decide whether a man's case should be accepted. A man is now to be given notice by the Minister that he will be retained.
I suppose that the majority of men will try it on, whether they have a case or not. Those applying for exemption will fall into one of three categories. There will be one category of men whose cases are obviously overwhelming, for reasons such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). They will go out. There is the second category, to which I would probably belong if I were affected, of those obviously trying it on. They will be kept in. Then there is the third category. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman—and this is a grave departure from past procedure—that this group is to be handed over lock, stock and barrel and considered by a tribunal, whose chairman we do not know and whose terms of reference we do not know. This tribunal in one breath was called impartial and in the next breath independent, while in the next breath were told that the absolute


authority would rest with the Minister. This is another example of a half-baked half thought out, certainly not yet digested scheme of whose details we have yet to be told.
Let us go back in our tracks. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, who moved the Amendment, which appears in my name, with great charm and ability, approached it from an angle somewhat different from mine. He spoke from the angle of the individual, of the individual's relatives and obligations. As this is an Army Reserve Bill, I approach it differently.
I have accepted the right hon. Gentleman's figures. He wants 15,000 men, and he has been driven into the corner envisaged by paragraph 48 of the 1957 White Paper which says:
It must nevertheless be understood that, it voluntary recruiting fails to produce the numbers required, the country will have to face the need for some limited form of compulsory service to bridge the gap.
This is the Measure to bridge the gap. The Minister has said that he does not want the men before 1st April, that 50,000 men would be available over the period and although at first he said that he needed about 25,000, he subsequently said that it would be only 15,000. A comparatively limited number of men is wanted to bridge the gap. Hon. Members seem to have completely overlooked this. In Cmnd. 175 of May, 1957, in paragraph 6, we find the Government's declaration:
The only really practicable form of selective service would be a ballot which the Government would only accept if there were no alternative.
The Government told the truth in 1957, in saying that the only way of filling the gap was by a ballot. The ballot is completely out. We are now told that 15,000 chaps are wanted. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East says—and here I slightly disagree with him—that we regard selective service with abhorrence. We have had plenty of lip service to the same principle from the benches opposite. Those of us who have pleaded for a realistic view about this matter have been told that the one thing which the Government will not have is selective service. This is the horror of horrors. From a weak case, they have

tried to smear two hon. Members on the fourth back bench and myself, saying that we wanted conscription. No more unkind, untrue or wicked statement could have been made. We were the pioneers in trying to get rid of it. What we say is that, rather than have half-baked units far under establishment scattered all over the world and pretending that we have atomic weapons which we have not got, we prefer the honest course of facing up to our obligations.
When I am told that we have no selective service, I rock with laughter. The Army took me back into its care when I went back, I am very glad to say, to a military hospital a couple of years ago. I remember that HANSARD used to come in, and that there was a statement by the then. Minister of Labour, the present Lord Privy Seal, who, quite arbitrarily and without any warning, announced that the Government intended not to call up 60,000 men—not 15,000 men, but not to call up 60,000 men. Up to that time, the principles upon which we were calling up men were that the miners, the agricultural workers and merchant seamen were exempt. What was that but selective service?
I have brought here this afternoon HANSARD of 14th December, 1959, because there the Minister said that he would circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the classes affected in the 60,000 men who were not to be called up, and this was in the days when we were told we had no selective service. What were these classes? They were:
(1) Men deferred by a National Service Deferment Board as learners, apprentices, student apprentices, articled pupils, articled clerks, or for training as technicians, or for approved part-bearing;
(2) Men (other than medical and dental students) deferred by a University Joint Recruiting Board for a first or higher degree or an approved diploma or similar course, including a sandwich course;
(3) Any university graduates or graduate apprentices deferred by a National Service Deferment Board for approved practical training following graduation;
(4) Students at Teacher Training Colleges, Farm Institutes, or on practical training on the land;
(5) Theological and missionary students and similar classes;


(6) Former apprentices in certain engineering occupations granted deferment following termination of apprenticeship for employment on designated work of importance for defence or exports (post-apprenticeship deferment')."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1959; Vol. 615, c. 1054.]
Now, somebody comes along and says that we must not have selective service. In the name of goodness, what have we had up to now?
The Government, refusing to face the awkward administrative decision created by their own policies and declarations, have now introduced a form of National Service that is as unfair, short-sighted and as militarily unacceptable as the mind of man could possibly discover, and they have done it for a limited period and have created a set of conditions which may even face this country with catastrophe.
Again, I plead guilty; I want to get rid of National Service and conscription. I want a Regular Army, but I am not going to pretend that we can manage with the numbers we have now got. We court disaster, particularly in the troubled world in which we live, if we have units, particularly on the Continent and in hot places, which are well below establishment. Therefore, I have put on the Notice Paper, with the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East—and they have been joined by others—these Amendments covering groups which are definable. They are specific and do not require any great administrative ability or cost in order to decide what they are. They are the men who are married at the time of their call-up, men who are the sole support of widow mothers and men with a National Service grant.
Here I must make the point that the Amendments fall into two groups. The Amendment we are now discussing and the ones that follow from it deal with Clause 1; that is to say, they obviously can be decided like that because they are the men serving who are married, those who support widowed mothers and those receiving the National Service grant. It is a matter of five minutes' work. The Amendment to page 2, line 36, to add:
(d) if he was married at the time of his entry into army service, as, or as the equivalent

of, his whole-time service under the said Act of 1948; or
(e) if he is the sole supporter of a widowed mother; or
(f) if, during the course of his whole-time service under the said Act of 1948, or the equivalent, he has dependants who are in receipt of national service grants"
deals with Clause 2, and I frankly admit that the third category, the men with National Service grants, may become a little dodgy, because the circumstances to which the man has gone back into civil life may be very different from what they were when he was serving.
What we want to do is to help the Minister, if he only wants 15,000 men. I am not going to trouble the Committee by giving the numerous authorities, distinguished serving authorities, or with some of the statements made in the Minister's own documents, which are not always intended for public circulation. The number of men which the Minister wants is about 182,000, although that will leave him short in certain specific categories. The final figure will depend upon the wastage and upon recruiting and, of course, there is another factor the full consequences of which the Army has yet to face—this business of putting recruiting as the greatest urgency of all, irrespective of the quality of the men in some of these services, which may create very great difficulties indeed. At any rate, we will settle for about 15,000 to 20,000, though we hope it will be less, but think it may be a little more—men of defined quality whose I.Q. the Minister can decide, and their occupation, without a ballot.
If we can help the Minister to give him the groups which we have already defined, I think we shall have taken considerable strides in the right direction, but the Minister should know that they are steps in the right direction, not only in dealing with the immediate problem but also in regard to the problem which will face some Government or other in about 3½ years time—in May, 1965.
What happens when the last National Service man has gone out? What follows after this policy? Therefore, I would plead guilty, if that is the right word, to having put down these Amendments as a sensible first step in the direction of educating the public into the realities of what an honest selective draft means, and as an alternative to the


half-baked idea that we already have selective service in its most vicious and unpleasant form. I hope I shall have the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and also that the Minister will see the wisdom of this, as helping him in his administrative problem and also in keeping the Army sweet and clean and away from this impossible task of deciding as between A and B—who should stay and who should go. Of course, the chaps in the ranks are sometimes a little more intelligent than hon. Members think they are. They will see through this. They will know, and I hope therefore that the hon. Member for Clapham, for whom I have great respect, will realise the wisdom of what I have been saying and will reverse his opinion, and, if necessary, which I hope it will not be, join me in the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. B. Harrison: I am glad of the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), but I cannot go the whole way with him in supporting the Amendments. or in supporting the method by which he intends that selective service should be carried out. If the truth be known, I do not think that he thinks that it should be done in quite this way, but it does give us an excellent opportunity for a debate.
I am sure that the Amendment in Clause 2, page 2, line 36, will cause a lot of trouble. I see all sorts of embarrassing possibilities. The point about a selective service scheme, which is what the hon. Gentleman has been discussing, is that it must be regulated and flexible. I do not think that tying a Minister down by Act of Parliament to certain categories, as is intended by these Amendments, is correct.
The hon. Member for Dudley and the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) have both said that they have been studying the American selective service system. I think that they will both admit that the method of selection comes direct from the President, and that there is a completely independent form of organisation to deal with it, and it specifies the categories. The categories are not in any way specified in the actual legislation, but are specified in

the regulations, as are the categories which are called up.
What I think we will have to do in the event of having an effective selective service will be not to have the compassionate cases specified like this, but to have a certain discretion to decide which types of occupations shall be called up rather than which types shall not, because the problem with armed forces is to get them balanced, and unless we can specify the type of shortages, and possibly have a ballot among those remaining, I think that we may be worse off than we are at present.
While I do not agree in toto with these Amendments, I think that they are forward-looking, and I think that it will not be long before, instead of having as it were a hidden selective service, we shall have a true selective service. I do not think that we in the United Kingdom have ever had a universal compulsory service. In other words, I do not think that there has ever been anything other than a selective service, even during the war. I think I am right in saying that the people whose registration number ended in "9" went down the pits, or there was some form of completely different selection.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will study the remarks made by various hon. Members on this subject so that when he comes, as he will in a year or two, to bring forward legislation to introduce a form of long-term selective service, which will be necessary if this country is to carry out its obligations, he will have benefited from this short debate on these Amendments.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: When my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and I tabled these Amendments, we based them on two principles. First, that as we are anyhow selective, we may as well select, first, efficiently, and, secondly, as fairly and humanely as possible. It is on the first principle that this group of Amendments is based.
The second principle, which I do not think has been mentioned, is that as the Minister is anyway promoting a Bill permitting an appeal to a Committee, it seems essential that the principle upon which people shall be selected should be clearly laid down. I was amazed to hear


from the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) that he thought, and seriously put it forward, that if one is selecting about 15,000 men from a large number of people the best way of doing it is to lay down no kind of category; to lay down no kind of guiding principle; but to leave it entirely to the Secretary of State for War.
My hon. Friend has pointed out how unprecedented it is to say that the elaborate question of call-up should be transferred from the Ministry of Labour to the Secretary of State for War, and the Secretary of State for War has told us that he feels that it is essential to have an advisory committee which will hear appeals. Those who have served on committees know that if a committee is told that it shall consider each individual case on its merits, and there are 15,000 individual cases, there is no possible way of it being done. Everybody has to do it in terms of certain clear principles.
What we are saying, and this is where I part company from the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), is that if one has a job of this sort to do it is far better to do it under certain statutory classifications. We have decided to try to write into the Bill certain statutory classifications so as to make it clear how the selection shall be carried out.
On the first principle that we are selecting anyhow, it is true that my hon. Friend and I have been looking into the American system. I think that I am right in correcting the hon. Member for Maldon on one particular. The selection is, of course, by regulations under the Selective Draft Bill legislation, and I suspect that the regulations there mean much the same as Orders in Council do in this country. That is to say, the classifications are included in the legislation which is passed by Congress. I cannot swear to this, but my reading of the position seems to suggest this.

Mr. B. Harrison: I have not my reference book with me, so I am not certain, but the point is that it is not in the initial legislation.

Mr. Crossman: No, it is in the regulations.

Mr. Harrison: I think that it would be wrong to write this into the Bill so that whenever any alteration was re

quired we would have to introduce an Amendment to it.

Mr. Crossman: I think what is clear is that it is not in the initial Bill which they passed for selective service, but it is in the regulations for carrying out the Bill. I am not an expert on the American Constitution, nor is it relevant, because we do not propose to introduce the American selective draft system. All that we are concerned to do is to indicate to the Minister that it is no longer valid to go on saying that this is an impossible system for a democracy to introduce.
We shall not be decentralised like the Americans, but it is valid to point out that we are not really putting these Amendments forward believing that we can do this in detail, but because we want to use this opportunity to discuss whether or not it will be possible, in calling up these 15,000 people, to do it in a sensible way, and to do it in a way which teaches us something—and I shall come back to this—about the job which we shall in any case have to do after 1965. We want to use this time to try out a sensible way of doing it. That is the whole purpose of this legislation.
I now want to take up something which was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). It seems to me time that we stopped using certain absolutely out-of-date clichés which are so old that they have ceased to be true. People talk about universal service. We know that universal call-up went out with the French Revolution. We have never called up everybody. We have reserved certain occupations, and conscientious objectors, and we do not call up ministers of religion. As has been pointed out, curiously enough every one of the main classifications of exemption in our universal call-up are to be found in the American selective service. The categories deferred under the American selective draft are almost the same. The Annual Report of the Director of Selective Service says:
Separate classifications are provided for students satisfactorily pursuing their education"—
that includes apprentices in America—
registrants whose employment is considered to be necessary for the maintenance of national


health, safety or interest; men whose induction would create extreme hardship for their dependants; persons who have had military service or are sole-surviving sons; elected government officials; certain aliens; ministers and ministerial students; and those over the age of military liability.
They are exemptions of the kind we found ourselves compelled to introduce into our universal National Service, but the Americans have the classifications more scientifically and carefully worked out. That is why I was amazed to hear that the hon. Member thought that the only alternative to calling everybody up—which we have never done—is to have a ballot. It is never successful to pull names out of a hat, and it is insane in a democracy, when we want to combine efficiency with fairness. That can be done only by resorting to fair principles of selection.
That is why it is essential that principles of classification should be laid down with absolute clarity. There must be two kinds of principles—those dealing with hardship, with which we are concerned in the Amendment, and those concerned with efficiency. As the Americans pointed out in the introduction to their Annual Report last year, if they did not have a selective draft they would not have any doctors or dentists in their Army. I am looking forward to seeing how this problem will be overcome after 1965 in this country. I am interested to know how we shall be able to get sufficient people by voluntary methods.
The curious thing is that the voluntary professional Army, formed simply by strictly voluntary means and nothing else, is as out of date as the universal Army. Both are abstract notions, because with our voluntary recruitment we cannot get all the categories of skill we require. I cannot believe that we can fix prices for men so accurately that we can buy up, as it were, the right number of people who are skilled in electronics, dentistry and all the thousands of skills needed in the modern Army. I do not see how, by such a method, we can persuade the correct number of 182,000 to join up, so that we shall have not only the correct global figure but the exact proportions of men possessing the various skills required for our small Army.
In my view it is a total delusion to think that we need universal National Service, but it is an equally total delusion to believe that if we abolish all forms of call-up we will obtain the right 182,000 men. What will happen is that we shall get certain traditional types of people coming into the Army, but we shall find men lacking in 20 or 30 categories of absolutely key technical jobs without which the Army will be practically useless in war. There is no way of getting these men by money.
Therefore, we say that for the modern, highly skilled small Army of the future, we need the Regular soldier as a basis, but we need to add to him, when we have got him, a sufficient number of people whom we select. I put it bluntly that we shall be selecting them for their skills and proficiencies, and in doing so we shall have to be careful to eliminate—and be very generous in doing so, because we are not dealing with huge numbers—all hardship cases. We can do that in a very broad way. We shall be able to reject two-thirds of the category.
If we use this method we shall be able to combine economy of manpower with justice, because we will be able to call up men to form an Army of the size really required. Then, if circumstances change and we need a few more or less, we have a system under which this can be done. We can always vary the number required.
8.15 p.m.
What is required above all in this respect is what the Americans call an inventory. We need to know what people we have in the country, how many people we have of various skills, and where they are. The great point about a selective draft is that it provides the Government with information about the skilled men available, and where they are to be found, so that at the right time the Government can take precisely what they need. There is no other way of providing ourselves with an efficient modern Army without wasting manpower and distorting the economic processes of the nation.
One of the things which I want to point out is the striking fact that, ever since the selective draft was reintroduced in America, after being dropped in 1947—it was dropped for a period because it was thought that the Americans could


do without it, but after 18 months they found they could not get the number of men they required—there has not been a serious political problem involving it. It has never become an issue in any Presidential or local election, because it is acceptable. It obviously makes sense. Once the people of a democratic nation can see it working, and know the principles and the clear-cut classifications on which it is based they will accept it. The American people have accepted it now, and they never argue about it.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan): I realise the relevance of the American system of selective service to these Amendments. None the less, I think that we should keep more closely to the Amendments.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. At present we are discussing a Bill which the Secretary of State for War has told us was occasioned by the situation in Germany. We do not necessarily accept that it was, but the situation is that the Americans, by means of the selective draft, have been able to put 250,000 men into Germany whereas we, at present, have hardly a unit up to establishment. That is what my hon. Friend is arguing inside the scope of the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman: I am not disagreeing; I merely suggest that we had better get back to the Amendments.

Mr. Crossman: I was arguing that we wanted to introduce clear-cut classifications and make them statutory. Two hon. Members opposite said that they liked the idea of a selective draft but not of statutory classifications.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I said that I did not like statutory classifications in the Bill.

Mr. Crossman: I am glad that the hon. Member has made that clear. I misunderstood him. If he says that he accepts the need for classification by Order in Council I do not mind a bit. I thought I heard him say that the Minister could do far better if he selected entirely individually, on his own. I made my case against him because I thought he was saying that the Minister can select all these 15,000 men by abstract principles known only in the Minister's brain.
I suggest that we may learn from America that if we have to select 15,000 men the only just and efficient way to proceed is by statutory classification, whether it is by means of an Order in Council or not. We want a statutory classification. I cannot see how the hardship committee, which is purely advisory, will really help here. It seems to me to be a cowardly device for enabling the Secretary of State to say, "If you have a complaint, you can put it to somebody." But at least, if he has to have the committee, let him give it clear classifications.
It is, after all, the point of our Amendment to list the principles on which people should be permitted not to serve. We do not pretend that there are not difficulties involved, but we want to make it possible for the Secretary of State to come to the Report stage with the Clause rewritten, so that at least there will be clear definitions of these issues.

Mr. Paget: If the classifications were clear, what need would there be for a hardship committee?

Mr. Crossman: I was arguing the case that we should classify these categories in order to guide the committee, and also that, if the Secretary of State is to have power to make up such lists arbitrarily, he should give precise statutory instructions to the committee.
Let us look at the list contained in the Amendment. First, there is the man who is married. If the Secretary of State needs so few men he surely does not need to take married men. If he can get enough unmarried men, then he can exclude married men. Then there is the sole supporter of a widowed mother and the man who has dependants in receipt of National Service grants during his service.
Are we to be told that, by writing into the Bill a provision that he cannot take any sole supporter of a widowed mother, the Secretary of State will be short of mechanics or dentists? Of course not. He can safely lay down these principles, and that is the point of the Amendment.
I am absolutely convinced that this Bill is merely the harbinger of something far more important. The Bill is a selective draft among people who have


already served, which is far the most unjust thing the right hon. Gentleman can do, and it will have to be replaced sooner or later—I hope that it will be before 1965—by a selective draft, based on sound and sensible principles and not on the retention of those who have already served. People will be willing to serve if it is seen that we have used this debate and this Bill to try to establish the principles on which selection can be carried out—principles based on both justice and efficiency.

Sir F. Maclean: I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) is right in thinking that this Bill is the harbinger of something better. I have expressed that hope but I cannot say that I feel as optimistic about it as he does. I am grateful to him for his Amendment, but I do not propose to vote for it. I do not propose to do anything but abstain on all the Amendments at this stage, because I feel that that is the best way in which one can show one's contempt for the Measure as a whole.
On the other hand, I think we should be grateful to hon. Members who have put forward the Amendment for giving us this opportunity to discuss various aspects of selective service, and I think that, for that reason, our discussion today will serve a very useful purpose. Of course, whatever anybody says, as has been pointed out already, we already have selective service. This Bill is making it more selective than it was before. As has also been pointed out, nobody has ever had anything else since the times of the levée en masse of the French Revolution—though one would think that that would make people less frightened of the idea than they are.
I think that exemptions of the type contained in the Amendment are the right way in which to tackle the problem. There are two main difficulties in the selective system. One is to limit the numbers when one has more men available than one needs. The other is, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree, the hardship cases, and the resulting wastage. Both these difficulties can be met to a very large extent by exemptions. One can exempt all kinds of categories, especially categories such as those listed in the Amendment, and one can also exempt people who are of

greater value to the national effort in other callings than they would be in the Army.
I think that if it was felt that it was still unfair that some men must serve in the Army—even if, under exemptions, service was limited to men who had no compassionate grounds for being out, were physically fit in every way and had a high enough standard of intelligence to make good soldiers—while others need not, I would be prepared to agree to having universal national service—not military service—in a sense that all young men of a certain age would be called up and directed into some occupation or another for a period of two years.
I do not believe that that is necessary however, because I cannot help feeling that, by exemptions, one would be channelling men into occupations where they were most needed, apart from those one kept in the Army. I do not feel that it is a good idea to have a ballot. I have never liked that very much. It seems unfair. It is all very well to say that it appeals to the sporting instincts of the British nation, but I do not think it works like that, and one would not get the men one wanted to the same extent as if one selected them. I am sure that a well thought out compromise between the American and German systems would be much more to the point in our case. I am sure that it is only by having a system of selective service that we can achieve the flexibility and the balance which we need and which at present is so sadly lacking in the Army.
The position will be even worse when conscription comes to an end. Suppose that my right hon. Friend finds that he needs fewer men. He could so adjust the draft as to ensure that he obtained fewer men. Should the situation deteriorate he could, without bringing in more Measures—by which time the existing crisis would be over, or we should be faced with another crisis before the Measure became law—do what the Germans and the Americans have done, and call up a few more men. He could cast his net more widely. Surely that is the right way.
Over all our discussions on this subject hangs the date in May, 1966, when the provisions of this Measure will no


longer apply; when there will be no more men left to call up under the terms of this Bill, with the possible exception of the "Ever-Readies" if there are enough of them. I hope sincerely that by then the Government will have realised their mistake and will have profited from the experience gained by the operation of this Measure. I hope they will produce a more satisfactory, fairer and far-reaching Measure to give us the men that we need to fulfil our obligations, and to provide them as often and for as long as we need them.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Unlike the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) who wants more conscription, I want less. When the Parliamentary Labour Party decided some years ago to press for the ending of conscription I am quite certain that it did not mean that there should be a back-door entry by the extension by six months of the period of service for those already serving.
I feel that it is easy for a Government with a majority of over a hundred to press legislation through Parliament. It is fatally easy for them to ignore the suffering which is caused in the back streets and the back rooms in this country by that legislation. It is time that Ministers took account of human considerations as well as military, and, financial convenience and strategic considerations. I believe that Ministers know they are guilty of injustice. How much more must their consciences be troubled at calling up for a further six months' service married men, men who are the sole support of widows or men with dependants? If their consciences are not troubled, all I can say is that they ought to be. I regard it as monstrously unfair. If the Government cannot meet their commitments with 410,000 voluntary Service men, they ought to cut those commitments. I believe it wrong to conscript anyone in peacetime. It is even worse to call up men in the three categories which I have mentioned and worst of all to give such men an extra period of six months' service.
I know that it may be argued that relief may be obtained if exceptional hardship exists. That usually means a

lasting illness, let us say, on the part of the wife or the widowed mother. I must acknowledge that releases have been granted on those grounds. But I maintain that there must be exceptional hardship in these categories whether illness exists or not. Surely the Secretary of State for War realises that to separate young men from their wives involves exceptional hardship. This unnatural separation of the sexes is wrong. It is even worse when a young mother is left alone at home—I do not think this is at all funny—to bring up her child. It is bad enough if he is to be away for two years. It is far worse to extend that period by another six months.
The other argument which is advanced is that hardship allowances are paid, so that there is a financial compensation. These hardship allowances are quite inadequate. In many cases the family, that is to say the wife or the children and the widowed mother, is often reduced to a National Assistance Board scale of living, and that is not the way to treat the families of men who, in any case, are being unfairly treated themselves. I repeat that hardship allowances do not compensate adequately for the loss of earnings. The average wage of the men is £15 a week and the Minister knows very well that these hardship allowances will in no way make up for that.
I believe that there is a combination of emotional and financial upset. I will quote an extract from a letter which I have received from a widowed mother whose husband was killed in the last world war while fighting the Japanese. She writes:
The call-up causes broken homes and broken hearts. I know that I am only one of a million mothers, but my son is a good boy and my house is empty without him, to say nothing of taking the lad's cash out of the home.
Mothers such as that are to have their troubles prolonged for an extra six months.
In many cases the National Service man is living in great poverty. I know of a young married man from Lancashire who is serving in Aldershot while his wife is in the North. He gets three free passes a year to see his wife. It is true that he gets a reduced fare on the railways, but even that reduced fare for that young man to go home and to


see his wife in Lancashire costs him £3 10s. a time. I have been through the budgets of men who, by the time they have paid for all the necessities, such as extra food, have to be subsidised by their parents, if the parents can afford it.
I maintain that the Government are getting these men on the cheap. It has been admitted that the "Ever-Readies" will receive a bonus of £150 a year plus £50, but no bonus is to be paid to the National Service men. I appeal to the Secretary of State, who does not seem very interested at the moment, although he ought to be, to exempt these married men, those who are keeping widowed mothers and those who have dependants, on the ground of humanity alone. I ask him to consider that. If he cannot keep the Army going without calling up such men as these, it is time to close it down, but he can manage with a reduced number of men, and in my view he has no right to call up men in these categories.

Mr. Julian Snow: I imagine that by now the Minister has been at least somewhat impressed by the views of hon. Members who have spoken about the need for some form of statutory exemption. This figure of 15,000 must be a fairly notional figure, but what we do now will serve as a pattern for what I am sure will be a repeated process which we shall have to consider.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) talked about the difficulty of assessing hardship cases. Those of us who in 1944 began to deal with hardship cases at unit level know that it was patent that assessments were completely different from unit to unit and that by the time cases were considered at a higher level there was very little equity in the assessments. For that reason I am certain that there should be clear-cut exemptions which can be understood by everybody and which would give men who are called up some feeling that there is fairness in the situation. The whole attitude of the War Office to this question of married men is hopelessly out-of-date. It seems to me to stem from the days when to the Army it did not matter whether or not a man was married; whether or not the woman with whom he associated was his wife. It was a

ruthless, harsh and unsympathetic attitude, which still exists to this day.
I would not feel so strongly about this now—and I have given up trying to attract the Minister's attention—were it not that only a few weeks ago I brought to the right hon. Gentleman's attention a case that demonstrates that, quite apart from the present provisions, the Army as it stands does not seem able to look after its married personnel. In my constituency I have a very well-known, old-established barracks, Whittington, from which a distinguished regiment was very recently posted to another depôt down on the coast. I found that some of the wives had been left behind, separated from their husbands. Worse than that, I found that some of those who had been left behind were in substandard quarters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred earlier today to the £16,000 million spent on defence, yet in this year we still have, not the people whom we are now considering, but men in the Regular Army being separated forcibly from their wives because their regiment is posted to a town two or three hundred miles away, and their wives being left behind in substandard houses.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) said just now, the emotional burden imposed upon wives is ruthless and unfair, and something to which our people should not be subjected. It is not necessary that they should be subjected to it. The living conditions and interests of wives are vitally important, but what about the children? What about the absence of the father? In so many cases there is possibly a young wife with an infant child, and an older boy growing up without adequate parental control—and then we wonder that we get increases in juvenile delinquency! That is only one aspect of the matter, one contributory factor in the study of the things against which we have to fight in terms of juvenile delinquency.
I should have thought that the exemption of married men was something about which we should not have to argue. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East about conscription. I believe that if, for national defence, we cannot get troops by other means we have to bring in


some form of conscription—but let it be rational and fair.
Another category covered by this series of Amendments comprises doctors. I should have thought that here was another case for very special consideration. The education of general practitioners—and there are not so many of those about these days—should be based on the widest possible spectrum of training and experience. For doctors to be continued in the Services beyond the absolute minimum time seems to be very much at variance with the nation's true interests. I do not believe that there is a shortage of doctors in the Services but, if there is, the Minister should again study the position. I must join with my hon. Friends in saying that exemptions of a clear-cut type are needed, otherwise we shall have injustice, frustration and unnecessary ill-feeling.

Mr. Profumo: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say something now. A large number of these Amendments would have the effect of exempting certain classes of men from Retention under Clause 1, or from recall under Clause 2—according to their personal circumstances—so I should first like to say a general word about exemption of those categories on hardship grounds.
On general grounds of principle none of these Amendments is acceptable, and I should like to explain why. There has never been a definition of hardship categories from military service in any Statute. For example, I gave long consideration, when preparing this Bill, to the inclusion of exemptions for certain hardship cases. I thought of students, but I was satisfied that this was undesirable and might lead to further injustices. I am fully satisfied that the Labour Government had good reasons for not attempting definitions in the National Service Act, 1948.
Perhaps I may be allowed to give an example of what might happen if an attempt were made to define students, for instance. The definition might cover a man undergoing a correspondence course, an apprentice, a man studying for professional examinations in accountancy, banking, and so on—

Mr. Paget: To which Amendment is the Minister referring now?

Mr. Profumo: I am now referring to the whole group and giving an example.

Mr. Paget: Is there an Amendment dealing with students?

Mr. Profumo: What I am saying is that so far the discussion has dealt with exempting various people, and I am now trying to explain why I believe that, on general grounds, it is undesirable to try to define exempted categories, whether they be students or anyone else. If one has exemptions one must have certain categories, and I do not think it possible—

Mr. Paget: When a number of defined classes are given, I was wondering whether it was very helpful to discuss someone not included in any of the suggested classes.

Mr. Profumo: I do so because, later, there are Amendments in which students are mentioned, and I will give further examples, if I may. Statutory definitions might lead to cases going to courts. Any attempt to define exempted hardship categories would, in my view, lead to great pressure to widen those categories. I think that this is made clear by the number of exemptions proposed in the various Amendments. It would be impossible to draw a line which, I think, would bear equally fairly on everybody, and it is not possible in that case to estimate the effect of exempting particular categories in terms of numbers. A narrow field of exemption might lead to unfairness.
Another example is that on 30th June last, 28 per cent. of the whole-time National Service men on Army service were married. Not all would suffer greater hardship than some single men if they were retained for a further six months under Clause 1. Being married or having domestic responsibilities in themselves have never been recognised as comprising grounds for compassionate treatment. They are part of the circumstances of cases which must be looked at on their own merits.
8.45 p.m.
During the Second Reading, I announced the administrative arrangements for dealing with appeals on hardship grounds. They provide for cases


to be dealt with by the War Office branch experienced in these matters, assisted by an advisory committee to be set up especially for this purpose. I am glad to tell the Committee that Lieut.-General Sir Reginald Denning, who is chairman of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, has accepted my invitation to be chairman of this committee, and with his wide experience of S.S.A.F.A. it seems to me that he will be a good chairman for this purpose. The rest of the committee I have not yet built up, because it seemed to me that I should invite a chairman of distinction, impartiality and understanding before I asked other people to come on the committee.
There will be provisions for deferment of recall under Clause 2 in exceptional circumstances which will enable cases to be examined. The effect of this batch of Amendments would be to exempt a wide class of National Service men from retention in the Army under Clause 1. As I mentioned on Second Reading, the National Service men will be retained on the same pay as Regular soldiers on three-year engagements. While they are retained under Clause 1. they will also have marriage allowance at the highest rate for Regular soldiers and will, of course, continue to be eligible for National Service grants. These arrangements should, I hope, ensure that men will not suffer financial hardship from service under Clause 1. Nevertheless, if such service is likely to cause hardship of any kind they will be able to appeal. Clear cases in which individuals wish to appeal against being retained will be dealt with at once by my Department as they have been all the time under the National Service Acts. Doubtful or borderline cases will be referred to the special advisory committee of which I have just spoken.
Where widowed mothers are concerned, such cases are at present dealt with sympathetically through normal channels. Where it can be shown, with supporting medical evidence, that a widowed mother is incapable, then compassionate discharge is usually agreed to. This is done under perfectly normal procedure and has not given rise to any real difficulty. There seems to be no good reason for putting specific exemptions in the Bill.

Mr. Snow: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Does he not recall that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was speaking, he quoted a case where the present Lord Privy Seal proposed a Measure which included statutorily defined exemptions. Again, if the Americans can do it, why cannot we? Why are the circumstances so different?

Mr. Profumo: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of listening to the whole of my speech. I do not think that we can necessarily base our legislation on what is done in America in wholly different circumstances. The draft system is not comparable with anything I am talking about here. The draft system is a system for calling men up for a period of one, two or three years' service, which is quite different. What we are dealing with here is the retention for a special purpose of men who are now serving in Her Majesty's Army and who are wanted for special military reasons.

Mr. Snow: They are still human beings.

Mr. Profumo: That is why I am making arrangements which will meet the case. I told the House on Second Reading that I would try to make arrangements which, I believed, would deal with the exigencies and circumstances of these particular cases.
Two of the Amendments show the problem created by trying to arrange special exemptions, which is that they create in themselves anomalies. To set a date before which a retained man must be married assumes that greater hardship, if hardship there be, accrues to him than to a man who marries after that date. I am sure that the proposals in these Amendments are the wrong way to go about this particular problem. In my view, the only way in such special circumstances is to deal with the hardship or compassionate cases which arise, either because of marriage or the other conditions mentioned in the Amendments, by the methods which I have announced.
What about the Amendments which deal with Clause 2? The procedure which I have outlined for retained men will apply in general also to men who


may be recalled under Clause 2. There will be provision for record offices to grant deferment of recall at once for up to 56 days to permit cases of hardship or compassion to be properly investigated. As I have already emphasised, it is possible that a sudden emergency might make it necessary for us to call up reservists with practically no notice, but should circumstances arise which permit the giving of more notice to men due for recall, their warning notices would contain advice on how to appeal against recall. If an individual thought that he had medical, hardship or other grounds for exemption, we should then consider the case immediately and, as far as possible, would exempt from recall any man whose case for exemption was properly established. I am sure that a procedure of this kind is the only practical one and that writing exemptions into the Bill is not in this case the answer.
This is illustrated by the batch of Amendments to Clause 2 which we are now considering. Some of these would lead to anomaly rather than to fair treatment. For instance, here again, a man who married during part-time service would not be exempted from recall on that account although those who were married before the commencement of whole-time National Service would be. A man who had dependants in receipt of National Service grants during his whole-time service would be exempt from recall even if he no longer had any dependants at that time.
I hope I have said enough in my comments on these and other Amendments to show the disadvantages and the injustice of attempting to write into a Bill statutory exemptions for one category or another. I hope that, in the light of my explanation and assurance, those who put their names to the various Amendments will not press for their acceptance.

Mr. Paget: Before commenting on what the right hon. Gentleman just said, I must say a word or two to hon. Members who took advantage of this series of Amendments to discuss generally the principles of selective service, particularly in the manner in which it was operated in America. That refers particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for

Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), the former hon. Member having the habit of making in almost any debate a speech that calls for an answer.
The question of this alleged necessity for selective service can always arise if one allows oneself to drift into a situation without having taken any steps to meet it. When it was decided to pass on to an all-professional Army, forecasts were made about the number of recruits who would be available. It can be said that those forecasts have worked out with amazing accuracy and they look like working out in that way in the future. Thus the Government have no kind of excuse for saying that they have not got the men they were led to expect they would have.
Equally, on the question of commitments, if one casts one's mind back to either 1957 or 1959 it seems that the commitments of the Army are now less than anyone at either of those dates had a right to expect. This is, in fact, the first time since the war when we have not had to find men for active service anywhere in the world.

Sir F. Maclean: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that is because, up to now, we have had an adequate Army? Is that not one of the reasons?

Mr. Paget: I do not quite see the point of that. I have been looking at the position to see what the Government had cause to anticipate. I was saying, regarding commitments, that the situation today is not only as good but better than the Government had any right to expect. I said that we do not have occasion to commit any men on active service. There is not a Mau Mau war or a Cyprus or anything like that on our hands at the moment. In Germany we are performing—in what the right hon. Gentleman chooses to call the Berlin crisis—a part in something that has been with us for the last fifteen years. But even with the Berlin crisis, we have scarcely half the men committed in Germany who, in 1957, in 1959 and now, we are obligated by treaty to provide.
In the rest of the world we have no sore spot at the moment. I can hardly think that the Government could have


anticipated doing worse than defaulting on nearly half of our obligations in Germany. It seems odd that the Government are asking for conscripts on the ground that they are surprised at the present situation. I remember that, as a member of the Committee of the Army League, I was considering how the Army was to deal with this situation, and it was obvious to the Committee at that time that unless the commitments of the Army were re-allocated or new sources of recruitment were opened up it could not possibly meet its commitments on the basis of the recruits available. One naturally assumed that it would either re-allocate commitments or seek new sources of recruitment. It has done neither.
9.0 p.m.
I believe that by handing the main responsibility of bases to the Royal Air Force and by giving the Navy the duty to provide mobile marine forces, and in ways like that, our Army commitments could have been readjusted. I also believe that our fields of recruitment could have been enormously enlarged, both in the Commonwealth and in Europe. It is particularly in specialised services, which are generally of a substantially non-combatant variety, that our shortages fall. I remind the Secretary of State that the German Army, the Wehrmacht, in military terms was not an unformidable force. Even in the case of Rommel's Panzer divisions, nearly 30 per cent. of the personnel were foreigners, and a good many of them could not even speak German.
Therefore, for the specialised services in particular the argument that our field of recruitment has to be Britain, is not very realistic. While it is perfectly true that if we drifted into a situation which was there for everyone to see without taking a single step in advance, some of this Measure may be necessary, it certainly does not make a case on principle for the necessity of selective service in our situation.

Sir F. Maclean: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government were defaulting on their obligations in Europe. Does he think that that is a good thing, because it is part of his case that we are managing very nicely? That is one of the reasons why there is not a greater demand for men.

Mr. Paget: I entirely disapprove of our defaulting on our obligations in Europe.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): The hon. and learned Gentleman must watch the borderlines of his argument. I do not think that it would be a good idea to pursue this point beyond the mere statement.

Mr. Paget: I entirely agree, Mr. MacPherson. I was tempted by an interruption to go rather wide. Perhaps you in the kindness of your heart will permit me to say one sentence. I think that we ought to have far more men in Germany, without selective service but with a proper re-allocation of commitments. We have 40,000 soldiers in bases, and I see no reason why they should be there. I think that we can get over our problem without selective service. I will say no more on that, because it is rather beyond the point.
I now deal with the Minister's speech. How many men does he want? We understood that it was 15,000. Is that right or not? If it is a problem of the difference between 165,000 and 180,000 during a period of shortage until the 180,000 materialise in perhaps two or two and a half years time, then we must look to see where we are to find those 15,000 men.
If that be the size of the problem, the right hon. Gentleman's observations that there have never been statutory exceptions, that the Labour Government had good reasons not to include statutory exceptions and that marriage has never been a ground for exemption, all make complete nonsense. I agree that not since the French Revolution have we had a levée en masse in the complete form. None the less, in theory at least, we had general National Service, the generality of the call-up was the rule and the exempted classes and individuals were the exception.
Now, we have something totally different. Exemption is the rule and only a small number—15,000—are to be called up. The matter is, therefore, being approached from the opposite point of view. Exemption is the rule and the rare exception has to be called up. Therefore, since exemption is the


rule, it is more than reasonable to include classes, and fairly wide classes, among the exempt.
Let us see how those classes arise, considering the matter always within the question of providing the 15,000 men. Those hon. Members who have said that this is selective service, even if a particularly unfair form of it, are absolutely right. This is selective service. The question is, therefore, how we are to select. Within a measure, the selection has to be what the Government wants, that is, people in the categories which the Government want.
Equally, surely, in this process of selection, we should consider the men who are selected and particularly the individuals other than the men themselves—their wives, their dependants and their children—who may be affected by that selection. [Interruption.] We come to the economic aspect in subsequent Amendments. At present, we are considering cases in which particular hardship is caused either to the individual who is called up or those who are dependent upon him. If the Government are to have the classes whom they want, so should human considerations, when only such a small number—15,000—is required, have their classes too.
This is a large group of Amendments. Let us, therefore, run through the categories which are proposed. First, the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), which was tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and others, suggests that the Clause
shall not apply to any person who…was married at the time of his entry into army service as, or as the equivalent of, his whole-time service under the said Act of 1948".
I have a subsequent Amendment which puts 1st December as the date. I chose that date simply because I believe that men should be exempted where they have entered into a commitment such as marriage in the anticipation that on a certain date they would be able to live a normal married life and look after their wives. If, suddenly and arbitrarily, after they have entered into this commitment the Government change the whole basis of it, that is a particularly unfair thing to do. In order to get 15,000

men, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the Committee that he must have men who are married at this stage? I do not believe it for a moment. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman believes it or would tell the Committee anything of the sort.
I am seeking to secure a fairly defined class, and I am picking here in particular people who, bona fide, have entered into commitments affecting the lives of others and suddenly that legitimate expectation is taken away from them and taken away not because anything unexpected has happened to the Government but because the Government have taken no steps to meet the expected. Is not that a reasonable request?
Next, there is the sole supporter of a widowed mother. Need I say more than that? Does the right hon. Gentleman really need the sole supporters of widowed mothers? At present he is generally letting them out on compassionate grounds. Why not let them out in this case? The next is the category of those intending marriage. This again is a question of commitments fairly entered into, affecting other people, in which the Government's action suddenly changes the whole circumstances. If they had the banns put up, which is what this amounts to, when the Bill was introduced and they get married before the date when it comes into operation, they are people who should be legitimately exempted. Again, I ask the same question. In order to get a mere 15,000 men do the Government really mean that they have to interfere with all these arrangements, which may mean that there has been a commitment to rent or buy a house and a job has been waiting and all the arrangements have been made in expectation of a marriage for which the banns have been put up?
In a further Amendment we deal with general exceptional hardship, and in another Amendment we say that:
This section shall not apply to any married man with children or whose wife is pregnant.
If the right hon. Gentleman says that he really cannot do without some married men, is it reasonable to break up families or to interfere with the very special needs when a woman is bearing her first child, because that is the case here? I heard one hon. Member ask


whether if we dealt with cases where a woman is pregnant it would not raise considerable difficulties. Surely not in the least.
9.15 p.m.
There will not be no notice. If when notice is received a man applies for exemption on the ground that his wife is pregnant, after the few months which will pass before the notice becomes operative, if there is any doubt about her pregnancy, the question will be medically easily decidable. There is an appropriate interval which ceases to make that in the least difficult to operate in practice. Again I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman—if in order to get a mere 15,000 men he feels that he must take some married men, does he really have to take the fathers of families, or immediately expected families?
I turn to the other cases, the recall cases which are broadly the same sort of compassionate cases but operating in Clause 2 as those with which we wish to deal under Clause 1. I return to the simple statement. It is the right hon. Gentleman's case that selective service generally is not only objectionable but unnecessary, but that nevertheless a form of compulsory service is necessary during the transitional period of some two or two and a half years between a volunteer Army of 165,000 and the date it reaches 180,000. At the most the number is 15,000 men and it is reducing to nothing over two and a half years. It is a form of call-up in which call-up is the exception and exemption the rule. It is a form of call-up unfair and admittedly unfair and directed to the Government's convenience.
Where people other than the man himself are concerned, his wife, his children, his mother and so on, in all conscience such men should be excepted from the numbers required to make up the 15,000. If the Government are asking for something unfair, at least let them do the best they can in the interest of the dependants to mitigate that unfairness. They can do it and they can admittedly get the men they want—a trivial figure of 15,000 reducing to nothing over a matter of two years. Surely these categories should be excepted.

Mr. Jack Jones: At the risk of being asked, What do you know about it?",

I want to say a few words as an old soldier, one who claims to have taken an interest in the Army from the day he first joined it and who was sincerely sorry to leave it—I happen to have been the regimental quartermaster-sergeant and perhaps should have stayed in. After the inglorious display we had earlier this afternoon, I am surprised that we do not want more men.
However, there are some aspects which have not yet been mentioned. As hon. Members know, I am connected with a very big concern which can claim to look after its workpeople. As a welfare supervisor for that big organisation and the editor of a works magazine, I have to deal with a page, "Forces in and Forces out". We keep a clear and concise and up-to-date record of every boy who leaves us and every man who returns to us from the Army—at least, we hope that they are men when they return.
The Minister perhaps does not know that big industry has a tremendous stake in the serving soldier. A man goes away and breaks a line of promotion, leaving a job which is important. I believe that the Minister, in encouraging and asking men to stay on, will not get the better type of man he needs. What young soldier with ego and a desire to get promotion will go for that promotion if he finds, as he will, that the best men are to be preferred to be kept, rather than those who do not bother so much? It will be the bright boys and the good lads who seek to become efficient N.C.O.'s, and indeed those who go for commissions, who will be affected first, in my opinion.
The Minister may say that this is not in the Bill, but we know what goes on in the Army. It is not a question of what is in the Bill but of what happens in the Army, and the colonel, with his adjutant and lieutenant, in making a recommendation about who can be spared, will not spare the good ones as quickly as those who do not want to get on but only want to get home. To compel men to stay, therefore, will create a situation in which the Minister will not get the best out of those who are there, whoever they may be.
I want to speak now about the effect on the young married couple, quite apart


from the question of the wife who cannot afford to become a mother while the husband is away, and those wives who go out to work while the husband is away, the people who plan their families and forcing people to break religious laws as a result of this Bill.
There is the case of the young man who makes arrangements with a company, and with his parents, indeed with his brothers and sisters—and I can give chapter and verse for this—to be able to pay his housing mortgage. There is considerable risk in taking on a debt for a specified period and guaranteeing help for that period. The young man now finds that at the end of the specified period the help ceases and his service is continued under the Bill. What is to happen to these people when the mortgage people say they want their money? I know the Minister will say that he will look at these things, but if I had my way with the Bill a Clause would be inserted whereby those who stay on to defend the interests of those who stay at home, who get the privilege of living in a free democracy, would get exactly the same wages during the period for which they stay as they would had they been allowed to come home. That is the solution to this kind of problem.
I turn back to the question of the industrial effects in my own great industry, though not so great today, due to the machinations of the Government, but I will not go into that, because this is the wrong time and place, and it would be out of order—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): The last phrase of the hon. Gentleman was very pertinent, and I hope he will take it to heart. It is desirable that he should keep a little more closely to the Amendment.

Mr. Jones: I went on to say, Mr. MacPherson, and I thought I had beaten you to it, that I should be out of order if I continued. One cannot dissociate the effects of this Bill upon industry, but I have been told by our Front Bench leaders that we shall come to such questions later on.
I can tell the Minister quite seriously and sincerely that the trade unions make arrangements for some absent members

to pay their trade union contributions. My own union does this, and others do it too, and they consider that there are all sorts of obligations which may not be considered to be hardships. There is more hardship than that just affecting the emotional side of being away from a young wife and that sort of thing. There is real economic hardship, which might have very serious effects upon the industry of the country. I hope that the Minister will make up his mind about these things, and that he will look at some of these problems in a rather different light than he appears to want to do at the moment.

Mr. Victor Yates: I am sorry that the Minister has dismissed the Amendments. He apparently can see no virtue in any of them. The Minister is a generous man, and has dealt humanely and kindly with many cases that I have brought to his notice, and I had expected him, out of the kindness of his heart, to accept at least one or two of these Amendments.
I want to make a special plea to the Minister in respect of two categories of people. I appreciate the difficulty he mentioned about some married men being called up and others not being called up, but what I find extremely difficult to understand is that the problems of the young married man who has children, and is often suffering acute hardship and anxiety, are often not brought to the notice of the Ministry. In many cases this happens simply because the young man concerned does not make the necessary application. Most of these young men are anxious to do their service, and do not like to think that they are in any way shirking their responsibilities.
A short time ago I brought to the attention of the Minister the case of a young National Service man whose family was homeless and was roaming the streets of Birmingham. The young man was sent to Tripoli. Of course, he ought never to have been called up. It may be said that his case would be considered by a hardship committee, but I do not understand the principles on which this committee works.
I suppose that if a man is called up for two years there is time in which to examine his position, but what happens when a man is asked to go on for


another six months? What opportunity is there to argue his case as fully as it ought to be argued? Perhaps the Minister can tell us something more about how the hardship committee works.
When I put forward a case for exemption on the ground of hardship, a good deal of sympathy is extended to the individual, but that is about all. I have already referred to the young man who was called up and sent abroad, and what disturbs me at the moment is that a lot of young National Service men in Birmingham have no homes. If a young man of 18, 19, or 20, has a home in Birmingham today, he can consider himself fortunate, because in Birmingham there are between 50,000 and 60,000 families waiting for houses.
I am making a special plea for the young married man with children who has no home. I think that the Government ought to put these people in a special category. The young man to whom I referred was flown to Tripoli and then flown back to this country to help his wife and family. He was given two months leave to try to find a home for them. He then went back overseas. The Minister took his case up and saw that justice was done. Young married men with family responsibilities ought to be specially considered, and should not be made to suffer the anxiety of knowing that their families are homeless and in need of help while they are away.
9.30 p.m.
The other man is the sole supporter of a widowed mother. This is the only occasion on which I have found myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in these debates. The part of his Amendment that specially appeals to me is that which deals with the sole supporter of a widowed mother. The Minister is quite right in saying that great sympathy is shown in these cases. Nevertheless, cases have been brought to my notice of young men who suffered the greatest anxiety because they had to leave their mothers. I am not referring to cases where the mothers are ill, or anything like that; I am approaching the question solely from the point of view of the moral support needed by a widowed mother. If the Minister would agree to exempt this category he would be doing

something human. He would be showing that, as Secretary of State for War, he is seized of the need to show some humanity, and that he is trying to humanise his Department.
Nat many men would be involved, but this is a tremendously important question. The Minister has always said, "Give me the facts and we will go into the case and give it the most careful and sympathetic consideration." But I say that those people who have been serving, and who will be called upon to serve for another six months, should not have to appeal against that extra six months. Why not be generous? Although the Minister has spoken once, I ask him to tell the Committee that he will agree to exempt one or two of the categories referred to in the Amendments. If he does that he will earn the gratitude of the Committee and the country.

Mr. Mellish: I heard the Minister's reply. Whatever else we may say, whether we agree with him or not, we cannot deny his courtesy. He tried very hard to put forward what he regarded as the main objection to the principle behind the Amendments. He said that to write these provisions into a Bill, and to lay down these categories by law, would make the Bill unique, and he thought that it would be very unwise. I realise that I must answer that point.
Never before in our history have we had a Bill of this character, retaining only a certain type of man. It is against that background that I want to argue my case. If we were talking about the continuation of National Service, I agree that the Amendments would be inadequate and unreal. If we called up thousands of men in their age groups it would be unwise to define, in any form of legislation, exempted categories.
I pay this tribute. I believe that, in the main, those sitting on the tribunals to whom persons who are being called up have appealed have done a fair and honest job. Their yardstick has been whether there would be real heartache, and they have either exempted such persons or have deferred them for a long period. But that would not be the case here. This involves boys who have already been through this process. Many of them are in the Army despite having been to tribunals, but once in the Army they have done their best.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) made a good point. The boy who has tried hard, who has done his best, who has shown keenness and initiative and has not tried to go home at every possible opportunity or to work the oracle with his commanding officer, will be punished for having been a good soldier. I was, for a short time, an officer commanding and I know that commanding officers will pick the right boys. I would not want a loafer to remain. He would be the first to go, and the bright boy would be my preference No. 1. Those with special aptitudes and abilities will be the ones to be kept on for the extra six months.
We have never learned from the Secretary of State which are the specialised grades to be retained. I gather that it will be such categories as engineers and signalmen. Again, the boys in the specialised corps like the Royal Engineers who have tried to study their job will be the first to be punished. It is, therefore, logical that if the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the wording of the Amendment he should have a Schedule showing the categories of exemptions.
Let us be frank here. This is a wretched Bill, and once it is passed the Secretary of State will have so much trouble that it will drive him mad. He will receive many letters from all over the country. Notifications will arrive in the barrack rooms and two or three soldiers will learn that they are to be retained. Monstrous debates will go on then. Some will say, "Why should I be retained? You are not married or you have no dependants, but I have a widowed mother to support."
The third category mentioned in the Amendment is that of a man who
During the course of his whole-time service under the said Act of 1948, or the equivalent, has dependants who are in receipt of national service grants.
If a boy has already served for two years and has dependants living almost entirely on National Service grants, great hardship will be involved if he has to be retained for another six months. To whom is he to appeal? He will appeal to the Secretary of State and the case will be referred to a Committee presided over by a man who is very fair and who served with the S.S.A.F.A. My

experience with the Association has been pretty good—it got me out of the Far East. But let us suppose that the soldier concerned applied on grounds of hardship when he first went into the Army but was rejected. The Army is quite likely to take the line that if it exempts a certain soldier it will have a flood of further accusations.

Mr. Ross: If I understand the position correctly, the man has no such right. The application goes to the Secretary of State and it is only the marginal cases that will go through the appeals procedure. The appeal is from the Secretary of State. It is shocking.

Mr. Mellish: I am falling over backwards in trying to be generous to the Secretary of State. He has had such a bashing in the first three hours that I should like to be generous. I assume from the speech made by the Minister that a special committee will be established. The right hon. Gentleman did give the name of a very important personage who would be the chairman. I think he said that it would be a lieutenant-general, and that this committee will be responsible for considering the applications of those men who claim that they have hardship grounds. Am I right in saying that?

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Gentleman did me the courtesy of listening to my speech and therefore I will try to see whether I can put him right. As I announced during the Second Reading debate these cases will in the normal way—as do all appeals from National Service men trying to get out of the Army—go to a special branch of the War Office. But because I recognise that here there are special circumstances, I am proposing to set up a hardship committee. For the benefit of those hon. Members who did not hear my speech I announced that I had invited Lieut.-General Denning, who is chairman of S.S.A.F.A. to be chairman of the committee. He is not now in the Army. He has accepted my invitation to be chairman of this new hardship committee to advise me on special cases.
If I may be forgiven for repeating myself, I also told the Committee that the remainder of the members of this special hardship committee have not yet been announced. I thought it right to


obtain an acceptance from the chairman before approaching other people, such as representatives of the trade unions, the employers and others connected with education and so on. This committee will deal with special cases upon which the Departmental machine would desire to have advice.

Mr. Mellish: I see one grave danger. Who will define the word "special"? I should have thought that it would be much better if all cases, irrespective of whether the War Office or anyone else considered them to be special, came before such a committee for consideration, rather than that the War Office should define what are special cases.

Mr. Paget: We have heard about the appointment of Lieut.-General Denning but I hope that we shall hear no more of him because this is the responsibility of the Minister. The idea of the Minister escaping from his responsibility by quoting some general or other as his adviser is something that we cannot accept.

Mr. Profumo: I cannot accept that statement. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is not what I said. I have always made clear what is my intention. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman had only "one foot on dry land" and that he was dealing in those days with the sea. But on Second Reading—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am accepting the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not dealing with this Bill during the Second Reading, and I put it in that way.
I have made it perfectly clear that the responsibility must be mine. That is what I have argued all the way through and, therefore, I cannot set up a statutory appeal body. It is my responsibility and I am merely saying that this hardship committee will advise me.

Mr. Mellish: Perhaps I may now be permitted to intervene in my own speech.
I am one who considers it not a bad idea to receive advice from an outside body. It is my view that this sort of committee is a good idea. We differ on a good many things and hon. Members on this side of the committee may hold different opinions. But I repeat to the Minister that I consider it of great importance, and there are many other hon. Members on this side of the Committee

who believe as I do, that conscription is fair in principle so long as it can be shown that the state of the country is such as to justify the imposition of conscription. But the Minister has never tried to justify that. He has produced a half-baked scheme involving 15,000 men, and there is even vagueness about whether they will be called up. In order to give the right hon. Gentleman the right to do this we have to have all this involved machinery.
I know that as a result the Minister will be involved in an avalanche of letters and requests. There will be rows and there will be Adjournment debates on the subject. And for what? For 15,000 men. We have heard before that these 15,000 men are to be called up to deal with the Berlin crisis. The Russians must be laughing their heads off at the thought that 15,000 men could make all that difference. I appeal to the Minister to realise that what he has done is to make an absolute farce of what I consider could be a fair and proper procedure.
If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept the Amendments in their present form, he should introduce a new Schedule to the Bill setting out a complete list of those people who will be exempt. Then men could say to themselves that the Army was treating them fairly, and that if they came within any of the categories mentioned in the Schedule, they would receive special priority and special consideration. Otherwise, we shall get back to the position to which I have already referred where the man who spent most of his time trying to get out of the Army, the man who did not pull his weight, is the man who will get preference because he will not be the one who is wanted. He will get out of the Army and a decent fellow will be caught by the Army.
We talk about recruitment, but how can we ask people to join any organisation which applies a scheme which is as unfair as that? The modern Army above all must be an Army which men can join with honour and integrity knowing that they will be given a decent life while they are in it and will be well treated at the end of their service. It cannot be said that that applies to these young people. After having given two years of their young lives to the Army they are to be told that, for all sorts


of reasons which the Minister has vaguely put forward, they must serve for another six months.

Mr. Michael Hughes-Young (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): rose in

Division No. 40.
AYES
9.46 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Allason, James
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Arbuthnot, John
Green, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey
Grimston, Sir Robert
Page, John (Harrow, west)


Barber, Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Barlow, Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pearson, Frank (Citheroe)


Barter, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Peel, John


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Berkeley, Humphry
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitman, Sir James


Bidgood, John C.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pitt, Miss Edith


Biffen, John
Hastings, Stephen
Pott, Percivall


Biggs-Davison, John
Hay, John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bingham, R. M.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bishop, F. P.
Hendry, Forbes
Prior, J. M. L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hiley, Joseph
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bossom, Clive
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Boyd Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hobson, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brewis, John
Hocking, Philip N.
Ramsden, James


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Peter


Brooman-White, R.
Hollingworth, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hopkins, Alan
Rees, Hugh


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hornby, R. P.
Renton, David


Bryan, Paul
Hornsby- Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridsdale, Julian


Bullard, Denys
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rippon, Geoffrey


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Burden, F. A.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Roots, William


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
James, David
Russell, Ronald


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
St. Clair, M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Sharples, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Shaw, M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooke, Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Cooper, A. E.
Kershaw, Anthony
Smithers, Peter


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Costain, A. P.
Langford-Holt, J.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Coulson, J. M.
Leather, E. H. C.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Crowder, F. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stodart, J. A.


Cunningham, Knox
Lindstead, Sir Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Curran, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Storey, Sir Samuel


Dance, James
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, Sir Henry


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Deedes, W. F.
Loveys, Walter H.
Talbot, John E.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tapsell, Peter


Doughty, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


du Cann, Edward
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Emery, Peter

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McMaster, Stanley R.
Temple, John M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Farr, John
Maginnis, John E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Fell, Anthony
Marshall, Douglas
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Marten, Neil
Turner, Colin


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Foster, John
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Stratton
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gilmour, Sir John
Morgan, William
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Nabarro, Gerald
Walker, Peter


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Goodhart, Philip
Nugent, Sir Richard
Webster, David


Goodhew, Victor
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gower, Raymond
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 221, Noes 156.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Wolrlge-Gordon, Patrick



Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Woodhouse, C. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wise, A. R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr, Noble




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hilton, A. V.
Parker, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holman, Percy
Pavitt, Laurence


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holt, Arthur
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Awbery, Stan
Houghton, Douglas
Peart, Frederick


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hoy, James H.
Popplewell, Ernest


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Prentice, R. E.


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Blackburn, F,
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, Arthur


Blyton, William
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Randall, Harry


Boyden, James
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redhead, E. C.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Reynolds, G. W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rhodes, H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, Edward


Chapman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Collick, Percy
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Crosland, Anthony
Ledger, Ron
Small, William


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, Julian


Diamond, John
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dodds, Norman
Logan, David
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McInnes, James
Steele, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Evans, Albert
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stonehouse, John


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, William


Fitch, Alan
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Symonds, J. B.


Fletcher, Eric
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mapp, Charles
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marsh, Richard
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
Thornton, Ernest


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mayhew, Christopher
Thorpe, Jeremy


George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

Wade, Donald


Ginsburg, David
Mellish, R. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Gooch, E. G.
Mendelson, J. J.
Warbey, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Gourlay, Harry
Milne, Edward J.
Whitlock, William


Greenwood, Anthony
Mitchison, G. R.
Wigg, George


Grey, Charles
Monslow, Walter
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Moyle, Arthur
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gunter, Ray
Mulley, Frederick
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Neal, Harold
Woof, Robert


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oram, A. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hannan, William
Owen, Will



Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Paget. R. T.
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Ifor Davies.

Question put accordingly, That the proposed words be there added:—

Division No. 41.
AYES
[9.55 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Callaghan, James
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Collick, Percy
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Awbery, Stan
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Galpern, Sir Myer


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Crosland, Anthony
Ginsburg, David


Bence, Cyril
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gooch, E. G.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Benson, Sir George
Diamond, John
Gourlay, Harry


Blackburn, F.
Dodds, Norman
Greenwood, Anthony


Blyton, William
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Grey, Charles


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Boyden, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Grimond, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Evans, Albert
Gunter, Ray


Brockway, A. Fenner
Fernyhough, E.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fitch, Alan
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fletcher, Eric
Hannan, William

The Committee divided: Ayes 155. Noes 223.

Hayman, F. H.
Mapp, Charles
Silverman, Jullus (Aston)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Marsh, Richard
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hilton, A. V.
Mason, Roy
Skeffington, Arthur


Holman, Percy
Mayhew, Christopher
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Holt, Arthur
Mellish, R. J.
Small, William


Houghton, Douglas
Mendelson, J. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce
Snow, Julian


Hoy, James H.
Milne, Edward J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mitchison, G. R-
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Monslow, Walter
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, A. E.
Moody, A. S.
Steele, Thomas


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Moyle, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Mulley, Frederick
Stonehouse, John


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Neal, Harold
Stones, William


Janner, Sir Barnett
Oram, A. E.
Symonds, J. B.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Will
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Padley, W. E.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Paget, R. T.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Parker, John
Thornton, Ernest


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pavitt, Laurence
Thorpe, Jeremy


Kelley, Richard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wade, Donald


Kenyon, Clifford
Peart, Frederick
Wainwright, Edwin


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pentland, Norman
Warbey, William


King, Dr. Horace
Popplewell, Ernest
Weitzman, David


Ledger, Ron
Prentice, R. E.
Whitlock, William


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wigg, George


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Probert, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Pursey, Cm dr. Harry
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Logan, David
Randall, Harry
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Loughlin, Charles
Redhead, E. C.
Winterbottom, R. E.


McInnes, James
Reynolds, G. W.
Woof, Robert


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rhodes, H.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



McLeavy, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rose, William
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Ifor Davies.


Manuel, A. C.
Short, Edward





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Curran, Charles
Hirst, Geoffrey


Allason, James
Dance, James
Hobson, John


Arbuthnot, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hocking, Philip N.


Atkins, Humphrey
Deedes, W. F.
Holland, Philip


Barber, Anthony
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hollingworth, John


Barlow, Sir John
Doughty, Charles
Hopkins, Alan


Barter, John
du Cann, Edward
Hornby, R. P.


Bell, Ronald
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Emery, Peter
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Berkeley, Humphry
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bidgood, John C.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Biffen, John
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Farr, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bingham, R. M.
Fell, Anthony
James, David


Bishop, F. P.
Finlay, Graeme
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Black, Sir Cyril
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bossom, Clive
Foster, John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Gardner, Edward
Joseph, Sir Keith


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gibson-Watt, David
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Brewis, John
Gilmour, Sir John
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bromley-Davenport.Lt. -Col. SirWalter
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kershaw, Anthony


Brooman.White, R.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Kirk, Peter


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Langford-Holt, J.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Goodhart, Philip
Leather, E. H. C.


Bryan, Paul
Goodhew, Victor
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Buck, Antony
Gower, Raymond
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bullard, Denys
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Litchfield, Capt. John


Burden, F. A.
Green, Alan
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Grimston, Sir Robert
Longden, Gilbert




Loveys, Walter H.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gurden, Harold
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
MacArthur, Ian


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McLaren, Martin


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Macleod, Rt. Hn.Iain (Enfield, W.)


Chataway, Christopher
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth,W.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Cooke, Robert
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maddan, Martin


Cooper, A. E.
Hastings, Stephen
Maginnis, John E.


Corfield, F. V.
Hay, John
Marshall, Douglas


Costain, A. P.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marten, Neil


Coulson, Michael
Hendry, Forbes
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hiley, Joseph
Mawby, Ray


Crowder, F. P.
Hill, Mrs Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cunningham, Knox
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Mills, Stratton







More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Morgan, William
Rees, Hugh
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Renton, David
Temple, John M.


Nabarro, Gerald
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Neave, Airey
Ridsdale, Julian
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Nugent, Sir Richard
Rippon, Geoffrey
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Roots, William
Turner, Colin


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Russell, Ronald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Page, Graham (Crosby)
St. Clair, M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Sharpies, Richard
Vickers, Miss Joan


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Shaw, M.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Peel, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
-Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Walker, Peter


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Smithers, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Pitman, Sir James
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Webster, David


Pitt, Miss Edith
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pott, Percivall
Stevens, Geoffrey
Whitelaw, William


Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stodart, J. A.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Prior, J, M. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wise, A. R.


Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pym, Francis
Talbot, John E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tapsell, Peter



Ramsden, James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rawlinson, Peter
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and




Mr. Noble.

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Division No. 42.]
AYES
[10.5 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Grimston, Sir Robert


Aitken, W. T.
Cooke, Robert
Gurden, Harold


Allason, James
Cooper, A. E.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Arbuthnot, John
Corfield, F. V.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Atkins, Humphrey
Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Barber, Anthony
Coulson, Michael
Harvey, Sir Arthur vere (Macclesf'd)


Barlow, Sir John
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Barter, John
Crowder, F, P.
Hastings, Stephen


Bell, Ronald
Cunningham, Knox
Hay, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Curran, Charles
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Berkeley, Humphry
Dance, James
Hendry, Forbes


Bidgood, John c.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hiley, Joseph


Biffen, John
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Biggs-Davison, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bingham, R. M.
Doughty, Charles
Hobson, John


Bishop, F. P.
Drayson, G. B.
Hocking, Philip N.


Black, Sir Cyril
du Cann, Edward
Holland, Philip


Bossom, Clive
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hollingworth, John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Emery, Peter
Hopkins, Alan


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hornby, R. P.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Errington, Sir Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Brewis, John
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Farr, John
Hughes-Young, Michael


Brooman-White, R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Foster, John
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bryan, Paul
Gardner, Edward
James, David


Buck, Antony
Gibson-Watt, David
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bullard, Denys
Gilmour, Sir John
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Glover, Sir Douglas
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Burden, F. A.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Joseph, Sir Keith


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Goodhart, Philip
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Goodhew, Victor
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gower, Raymond
Kershaw, Anthony


Cary, Sir Robert
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Kirk, Peter


Chataway, Christopher
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Langford-Holt, J.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Green, Alan
Leather, E, H. C.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Army Reserve Bill he exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. I (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes, 153.

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Storey, Sir Samuel


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pitman, Sir James
Studholme, Sir Henry


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Pitt, Miss Edith
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Port, Percivall
Talbot, John E.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Tapsell, Peter


Longden, Gilbert
Price, David (Easteigh)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Loveys, Walter H.
Prior, J. M. L.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


MacArthur, Ian
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, W.J. (Bradford, N.)


McLaren, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Temple, John M.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Pym, Francis
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Ramsden, James
Thornton-Kernsley, Sir Colin


Macphereon, Niall (Dumfries)
Rawlinson, Peter
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Madden, Martin
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Turner, Colin


Maginnis, John E.
Rees, Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Marten, Neil
Renton, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Vane, W. M. F.


Mawby, Ray
Ridsdale, Julian
Vaughan-Morgan,Rt. Hon. Sir John


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rippon, Geoffrey
Vickers, Miss Joan


Mills, Stratton
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Roots, William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Morgan, William
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Walker, Peter


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Russell, Ronald
Ward, Dame Irene


Nabarro, Gerald
St. Clair, M.
Webster, David


Neave, Airey
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Noble, Michael
Sharples, Richard
Whitelaw, William


Nugent, Sir Richard
Shaw, M.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Orr-Ewing, c. Ian
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Smithers, Peter
Wise, A. R.


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Woodhouse, C. M.


Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)



Peel, John
Stodart, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Stoddart-Scott. Col. Sir Malcolm
Mr Finlay and Mr. J. E. B. Hill




NOES


Ainsley, William
Greenwood, Anthony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grey, Charles
Manuel, A. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mapp, Charles


Awbery, Stan
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Marsh, Richard


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Gunter, Ray
Mason, Roy


Bellenger, Rt. Hon, F. J.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mellish, R. J.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.


Benson, Sir George
Hayman, F. H.
Millan, Bruce


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Milne, Edward J.


Blyton, William
Hilton, A. V.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Holman, Percy
Monslow, Walter


Boyden, James
Holt, Arthur
Moody, A. S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Houghton, Douglas
Moyle, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mulley, Frederick


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hoy, James H.
Neal, Harold


Callaghan, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oram, A. E.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Will


Collick, Percy
Hunter, A. E.
Partley, W. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paget, R. T.


Craddock, George (Bradford. S.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Parker, John


Crosland, Anthony
Irvine, A.J. (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurence


Crossman, R. H. S.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Frederick


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Diamond, John
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest


Dodds, Norman
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Prentice, R. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kenyan, Clifford
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Evans, Albert
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Randall, Harry


Fernyhough, E.
King, Dr. Horace
Redhead, E. C.


Fitch, Alan
Lawson, George
Reynolds, G. W.


Fletcher, Eric
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Logan, David
Skeffington, Arthur


George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmthn.)
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Ginsburg, David
McInnes, James
Small, William


Gooch, E. G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Snow, Julian


Gourlay, Harry
McLeavy, Frank
Sorensen, R. W.







Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Spriggs, Leslie
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Steele, Thomas
Thorpe, Jeremy
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wade, Donald
Winterbottom, R. E.


Stonehouse, John
Wainwright, Edwin
Woof, Robert


Stones, William
Warbey, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Symonds, J. B.
Weitzman, David



Taylor, John (west Lothian)
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Wigg, George
Dr. Broughton and Mr. Short.

Orders of the Day — ARMY RESERVE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I move this Motion in the spirit of Christmas, and I hope that the Secretary of State will respond in the same spirit. Apart from the fact that we are getting near Christmas, we have made good progress today. The Minister cannot count against us the three hours that were spent discussing the Motion which, for reasons which I have never quite understood but which must have been good to him, he himself introduced. He must have been gratified that his Motion was thoroughly discussed. That is what all Members want when a Motion is introduced. Again, I do not know why in the end the right hon. Gentleman voted against his own Motion. None the less, we had three good hours spent on something which the Secretary of State himself brought before the Committee. He cannot in any sense reckon that against us.
We would have been willing to start the Bill straight away. It was the Minister who decided that it was necessary to do otherwise. There is no question that we would have had at least one more big Amendment or group of Amendments under our belt if the Minister had not chosen, as he is perfectly entitled to do, to bring that Motion before us. Therefore, when reckoning the progress that the Committee has made, the Minister must count it as if we had passed one more Amendment or group of Amendments than we have done. But for the right hon. Gentleman, we would have done so. The fault is his, not ours.
In spite of that slight curtailment of our time, we have passed no less than twelve Amendments grouped together in three groups, each of which dealt with a fairly considerable issue and one of which dealt with one of the big issues in the Bill. No reasonable-minded

person could deny that we have made good progress if we deem ourselves to have passed one more set of Amendments than we have done. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will be able to say that we have such good progress behind us and have been moving so fast that he could not have hoped to get further, and that in the spirit of Christmas, which we extend to one another here as the season approaches, he will be able to accept the Motion.

Mr. Mellish: Are we not to hear from the Leader of the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Motion is agreed."] Is it now agreed? Can we go home?

Mr. Profumo: In the spirit of Christmas, I hope that the Committee will feel that we should have a few more presents before we depart tonight. I am not attributing to hon. Members opposite the fact that we spent part of our time discussing an elucidation which I wanted the Committee to understand. We have, however, made sufficiently good progress since then for me to feel the spirit of Christmas, although the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) rather put the spirit of April Fool's Day in what he said. We are in an aura of Christmas and, with the spirit of good will, we might make much more progress still than we have made up to now.
I am thinking rather more of the New Year than Christmas, because I want to get progress on the Bill. As I said on Second Reading—[HON. MEMBERS: "How far tonight?"] Hon. Members are quite right to ask me how far we are going tonight. We have only just moved the suspension of the Rule. To ask that we should break off on the Bill just after the House has voted on the suspension is asking too much, even in the spirit of Christmas.
Therefore, I suggest we should make a considerable amount of progress. The last group of Amendments provided very good debate. There is no question of extra time being taken on them. I rather hope that we can proceed with as much alacrity as possible, and a little later we can consider what progress we have made. In the spirit of Christmas, I ask the Committee to see whether we cannot make a little more progress before we agree to a Motion of this kind.

Mr. Bellenger: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can do better than that. In spite of his lapse earlier today, when he moved to report Progress to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to make a personal statement, it was on his initiative that the Committee spent two hours or more discussing his own Motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has been very reasonable, but he said that if the Government did this sort of thing, and we were surprised that they did them, they should take the blame and not blame the Opposition because we had not got on faster. We are now on Clause 1, the most controversial Clause of the whole Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman will not be reasonable, whether it is Christmas or not, he must expect that there will be considerable discussion on the Clause.
If therefore he only told us, for example, that he wants Clause 1—[HON. MEMBERS: "What, Clause 1?"]—it might help to speed up matters a little. In spite of there being no Christmas spirit among some of my hon. Friends, I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman met us we would try to meet him. But if he goes on in the way he has just spoken about, he must expect, Christmas or no Christmas, that we shall spend a long time discussing the Clause. I hope therefore that he will be a little more forthcoming than he was a moment or two ago.

Mr. Mellish: I agree with hardly anything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has just said. I am all for the Christmas spirit and good will and all that, but this is a Bill which is bitterly opposed by many of us. We think that it will do a grave injustice to the percentage of the population which it affects. That being so it is proper that we should fight it line by line and word by word. That is what Committee work is all about. In spite of the delay caused by the Secretary of State for War, we ought not to take the next Amendment now, because we shall be a long time on it. Both it and the Amendment which, according to the list in the Lobby, is to follow are fundamental, and I suggest respectfully that we could not possibly reach a decision on them until the early

hours of the morning in the present situation. As to the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill, we shall have a Labour Government before we reach that.
Seriously, we ought to start the New Year afresh on the Bill. It is not an urgent matter for anyone. It may be that its powers will never be used by the Secretary of State. What sort of people are we to be going on at this time of night on a Bill which might never be put into operation? I am glad to see the Leader of the House here. He has had a tough time lately. Some of us are sorry for him. He keeps getting himself superseded by the Home Secretary, but the Home Secretary knows how to handle us. It is about the only thing that he knows. He would have said, "Let us take one more group of Amendments" and we might have listened to him. If the Leader of the House starts off in a spirit of good will now, I assure him that when 1962 comes I shall come back in a spirit of good will, but if he says, "You are going to stay here until I think you can go home", I can promise him that not only will there be a late night now but many late nights in the New Year.

Mr. Wigg: My words are addressed to the Leader of the House. It is within his power to control the use of the Closure, and it was discourteous to impose the Closure on the group of Amendments which we have just been discussing. The Secretary of State for War had made a most important announcement. On Second Reading and in Committee he had broadly outlined the arrangement which he was to make for the appeals tribunal. Some of us were prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt and believe that for purely humanitarian reasons he was setting up this independent tribunal in order that—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is going rather beyond the procedural Motion which we are discussing.

Mr. Wigg: We are now discussing the Motion to report Progress, a Motion which is debatable. I am using the occasion to address some remarks to the Leader of the House, showing that if he wants to get Progress, whether in the spirit of Christmas or any other


spirit, he must have some regard to the rights of the Army and the efficiency with which the Bill is considered. It is no good having a Government Whip strolling in and bluntly moving the Closure because it happens to be a certain time. The Government will not make any progress with the Bill if that happens. Somehow or other we will find out what this tribunal means and how the Minister proposes to administer it.
It may be that his kindly heart and purely humanitarian reasons have made him set it up, but there are some of us who share the suspicions of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that what the Secretary of State will eventually do, however kindly his original intention, is to pass the buck. He is passing the buck in a very inefficient way. It has taken him seven weeks to make the announcement about the chairman of his tribunal.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is going far beyond the Motion.

Mr. Wigg: I am arguing why, if we want to make progress, the House should consider the Bill more efficiently. If that is not within the terms of the Motion to report Progress, I have failed to learn any lessons while I have been in the House of Commons. I am arguing that the Secretary of State has just announced the chairmanship of this tribunal, having peddled it all round Whitehall, and then we learn that the chairman is the chairman of S.S.A.F.A. Hon. Members know what that means.

The Chairman: I cannot connect this with the procedural Motion.

Mr. Wigg: I am arguing on the issue of making progress and saying that the Leader of the House has allowed steps to be taken which do not make for progress but impede it. The Secretary of State has just made an important announcement which should have been made not in Committee but in the House, so that we might have had an opportunity to consider it before—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is out of order.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Sir Gordon, the Motion before the House is that we report Progress and ask leave to sit

again. I am giving reasons why we should report Progress so that the Leader of the House can consider the handling of the Bill. If the Closure is to be moved automatically, without regard to the feelings of the Committee, or the state of opinion in the Committee, we will make no progress. I, for one, have been trying to make progress up to this moment, but if we are to have automatic closures, I will start to filibuster. I am rather out of practice, but I am willing to learn again. If the Leader of the House starts to move the Closure, that will be a game which two can play. We are entitled and the country is entitled and young men in the Services are entitled and their relatives are entitled to the Committee's consideration of what the Minister has done. He is using his machinery to settle matters which are difficult for him. If this—

The Chairman: That is quite out of order.

Mr. Wigg: With all respect, I am willing to learn, as always from the Chair and always to obey your direction, Sir Gordon. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has moved to report Progress and I am arguing, for the benefit of the Leader of the House, that we have failed to make progress because of the action taken by one of the Government Whips. If this happens again we shall not make progress, we shall pedal backwards.
10.30 p.m.
The Committee is entitled on this procedural Motion to invite the right hon. Gentleman to give us further information. If I am out of order, what was the Committee doing in the three hours of the first part of the debate? For we ranged over the whole policy then, to meet the convenience of the Government and the Chair. If we did that for their convenience, surely I am now entitled to ask how comes it that an important announcement of this kind was made then and not at the end of Questions?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not entitled to ask that question.

Mr. Wigg: We are all concerned with progress with this Bill, I would have thought, in the interests of the Government, the Opposition and the Chair.


Surely, then, I am entitled to use this occasion—not to ask—but to invite the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House to consider, when making announcements of this kind, that we are determined to probe them and get to the bottom of them, and in doing so we are concerned not with the rights of the Labour Party but with the reserve forces, the state of the Army, and the young men and their relatives. We are concerned that we shall not have an announcement of this kind and, while some of us are still on our feet, the Government Whip move the Closure. Against that I protest.
If, Sir Gordon, you rule this out of order, we must seek some other occasion, as, for instance, the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. This conduct by the Government is not the way to get the co-operation of the Committee. So far there has been no filibustering or wasting of time whatever. Speeches have been made by hon. Members on the Government side who wanted to make them. This is a matter which runs across party lines, and we are all of us concerned with it. Parliament does not work without some courtesy, and we must be entitled to plead for the efficiency of our proceedings, and so some regard should be had to hon. Gentlemen who want to speak. I am not pleading for myself but for the Committee as a whole. An announcement should not be made and then the matter brushed aside as the Government did brush that aside, for if they go on like that the Government will get a worse Bill than the Bill now is.

Mr. George Brown: I rise only because I think the Secretary of State completely misunderstood the purpose of this Motion and the spirit in which it was moved. If I may say so to the Leader of the House, we really have received very little assistance from him in our problems these last few weeks. I ask him to address himself to this. My right hon. Friend moved the Motion with the purpose of inquiring the intentions of the Government, a perfectly proper thing to do, a regular thing to do; but from the Secretary of State we received no indication at all. All we had was a rather brusque reply, obviously intended to be flippant, to the effect that, "We shall go on and see where we get."
I strongly say to the Leader of the House, supporting what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has just said, that if the Committee is treated this way there are ways and means by which the Committee can protect itself. Progress is not made simply by Ministers saying, "Well, let us get a bit more progress." We are entitled to discuss at this stage what the Government have in mind.
There is, I gather, no complaint made by the Government side of the Committee that they have been ill-treated today. On the contrary, the Secretary of State has gone out of his way to pay tribute to the progress and the speed of the progress after we had got rid of his Motion and—if I may use the phrase—his own filibustering on that. Since then, he says, we have made great progress and proceeded very speedily. It is not the business of the Committee to proceed speedily; it is our business to proceed properly, giving every due consideration to the provisions in the Bill; but if the Secretary of State is able to say that the only Motion on which we really spent any long time was his Motion, then I think that a very good basis on which to treat the Committee fairly afterwards.
We have just disposed of twelve Amendments, and with no complaint. We might have made some complaint about that, but we did not. We now have another group of Amendments to be taken together. They are of considerable importance. They apply to young men in very important employments, whose call-up, if taken, will involve very great hardship to them and other people. If we were to take those, we should have taken a very considerable next step. It cannot possibly be promised that those can be taken quickly or easily. They are Amendments of fundamental importance.
If the Secretary of State, in asking us to continue the debate, is intending to go beyond that tonight, I must tell him and the Leader of the House what they already know, that there are ways and means by which the House of Commons can protect itself against this abuse of the Government's majority.
I now address myself to the Leader of the House. I repeat that on these occasions he ought not merely to listen


to us but to intervene and help us. I ask him to state his intentions tonight. Would he be satisfied if we were, after reasonable consideration, able to get the next group of Amendments? I can give no undertaking but would be very willing to consider that and consult my right hon. and hon. Friends if that is what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind?
On the other hand, if he is not yet ready to make up his mind, I must point out that there is a great deal to be discussed on this group of Amendments and it will be easy for us to arrange that he has plenty of time while these Amendments are being discussed to make up his mind.
But I should have thought that at this point it was not at all unreasonable to ask the Government to stop playing with us and tell us what they have in mind. I think I have said enough to tell the Leader of the House what we think would be reasonable, and I hope that he will now give us an idea of his intentions.

Mr. Richard Marsh: The most worrying thing about the state into which we have got ourselves is the complete contempt with which the House of Commons is being treated by Government supporters. The importance of the issue that we have to debate is not in issue. Yet, at a time when three hon. Members are on their feet in an effort to speak to the Amendments before the Committee, a Government Whip strolls in and moves the Closure, and the debate is closured.

The Chairman: We cannot go on discussing the last Closure.

Mr. Marsh: I do not wish to discuss the last Closure, Sir Gordon, except that there has been a process of things culminating in the situation in which the Secretary of State, who was asked in the most courteous and pleasant terms to give the Opposition some indication of the Government's proposals, treated us with contempt, said "I will probably let you know some time later" and sat down. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has intervened at a dater stage and addressed remarks to the Leader of the House,

but apparently we are not even to be honoured by any comment from the right hon. Gentleman.
On an issue as important as this, we are entitled to be treated with a little more courtesy than has been shown so far by the Secretary of State or the Leader of the House. The only filibustering and wasting of time was that by the Secretary of State. The fact that the Leader of the House has got the House and the Government programme into a mess is no reason why discussion on the rest of a Bill as important as this one should be speeded up to a stage where it is impossible to give it proper consideration.
There is no reason why the Committee should be kept here at this late hour with no idea how long it will be expected to sit, with Government Whips walking in and moving the Closure to ensure that there is no proper debate, with the staff being kept up to a most unreasonable hour, when it is apparent to everybody that it is impossible to get all these Amendments this evening.
It is equally apparent that it is possible to make progress. We are entitiled to protection from the Chair and to co-operation from the Leader of the House, for we are dealing with peacetime conscription in a highly contentious Bill. Hon. Members opposite lost interest in the Bill some time ago or were told that they must not join in the debate, and apparently my hon. Friends and I are no longer to be allowed to debate the Amendments. I appeal to the Leader of the House for co-operation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] We have only one Leader of the House, despite appearances. I ask him to tell us how much further he wants to go with the Bill tonight. We can then determine whether he will be able to go as far as that.
If he agrees that we report Progress now, we shall return after the Recess to deal with the remainder of the Bill. The Leader of the House may by then have decided to return to the Colonial Office and we may have a different approach to the Bill. But clearly we shall not make much progress tonight unless we receive at least a certain amount of courtesy from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I emphasise that there has been every co-operation from this side of the Committee from the time that our discussions on the Bill started today. The way in which the Secretary of State sought our co-operation was unprecedented; he was in difficulty earlier and he appealed to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to get him out of the difficulty. It has rarely been known for the Government to move a Motion and then to ask for the reasons for the Motion to be given by an Opposition back bench Member. I thought that a transfer fee of the order of that paid for Jimmy Greaves should have been paid for my hon. Friend in order to get him to put the Government case.
We discussed at considerable length the difficulties into which the Government had got themselves and tried every possible way to get them out of their difficulties. It therefore seems unfair that when we reach 10.45 p.m. the Government are not prepared to accept a proposal that we should have adequate time to consider these Amendments. In the Recess we should be able to study these most important Amendments. We have had a heavy day at the end of a long and heavy Session; because of the way in which the Government have handled business from time to time, we have been under pressure since the House reassembled. It is, therefore, a reasonable request that the Government should give some indication of how long they intend to keep the Committee tonight.
There has been great co-operation from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, who always brings expert knowledge to debates on this subject. Time after time he helps the Government to understand what they are trying to do. Even if the Government agreed to the Motion to report Progress as a thank-you gift to my hon. Friend, that would be most acceptable.
10.45 p.m.
I am sorry that the Leader of the House cannot intervene to help us. He is the servant of both sides of the Committee, and we are looking to him for guidance. When the Committee gets into difficulties of this kind, we ought to

get a clear-cut decision from the right hon. Gentleman which will cut through some of the verbiage and allow us to get back to something positive.
This is an extremely important Bill. Every hon. Member has received letters about it from people who may be affected, and who feel that they are being unfairly treated by being asked to continue for a further period after completing the service for which they were called up. Because of our duty to our constituents, we cannot stop the debate at an early hour, and, if the Government want to, we must be prepared to discuss it all night.
I hope that the Government will have further thoughts about this. We have a heavy responsibility, and unless we discharge it effectively we will not be doing our job as Members of the House. I hope that the Minister will appreciate this, and will try to do his duty and discharge his responsibility in the way that we are endeavouring to discharge ours.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think that at this point we should have some clarification from the Secretary of State for War of the remarks he made about Christmas and the New Year. Surely he realises—and if not the Leader of the House can explain to him—that in Scotland Christmas is really New Year, and New Year is Christmas. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman draws the line of demarcation at Christmas, and is not prepared to extend the spirit of good will to the New Year.
This is an important ideological point. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is already making his New Year resolutions, and that the first of these is never to move a Motion to report progress to oblige my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).
I suggest that the time has come for a pause, and that this is the appropriate moment for the Secretary of State for War to follow the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour and agree to a pause so that at his leisure, between now and the 22nd January, he can make an objective examination of the Amendments which have been tabled and decide whether they will improve the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said, this is the time when we ought to be consulting our constituents. I am thinking not so much of my constituents, but of the constituents of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), because it is at this time of the year that we meet a number of our constituents who are about to board midnight trains from St. Pancras and Euston.
The first question that they will ask the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire is, "What are you going to do about these sanguinary Amendments to this sanguinary Bill?" We are entitled to give a sanguinary answer, but I can see considerable difficulties ahead because some of my constituents went into the Army from the mines. Now they are asking themselves, "How can we get back from the Army into the mines?" They are viewing with increased apprehension—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is going very far from the procedural Motion.

Mr. Hughes: I was illustrating the sort of questions the hon. Member and I will be asked on the 11.40—

The Chairman: That point does not arise on the Motion.

Mr. Hughes: This is the opportunity we will have to get into contact with our constituents who are in the Army and who are extremely interested in the Bill. I am giving only one illustration, in passing. Some soldiers are likely to have an extra term of service.

The Chairman: That point concerns the merits of the Bill. We are now discussing a procedural Motion.

Mr. Hughes: I shall find great difficulty in explaining this to my constituents, as will the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire. I suggest that we now have an opportunity for reflection, and for the calm consideration that is necessary before further mistakes are made. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to accept the Motion to report Progress, in order that we can return to discuss the Bill with the care and consideration it deserves.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: There is one overwhelming reason, in equity, why the Government should accept the Motion. The Committee is being punished for something which is not its fault. We are being kept in after school because teacher made a mess of the last two study periods. Why should we be expected to tolerate this? Why should the country be expected to tolerate the fact that its legislators are having to work on for a period during the night when they are not at their best, because fatigue is setting in, and should have to consider Amendments of intense and intimate importance to every citizen in the country? Why should we be expected to do this, simply because the Government have not yet learnt to run their affairs properly?
It is quite inexcusable. I—and no doubt many other hon. Members are in the same position—am torn in two at this moment between two claims, two duties, two desires and two obligations—

Mr. Mellish: Which ones do you prefer?

Mrs. Castle: On the one hand, I have a pile of letters that I have received from constituents, complaining about the Bill and its application to their sons and husbands—

The Chairman: The hon. Lady is arguing the merits of the Bill.

Mrs. Castle: I am trying to say—if I may be allowed to finish a sentence—that I want an opportunity to bring before the Committee, at a time when it is fresh and able to reason, arguments contained in letters from my constituents—and, my heavens, the Secretary of State cannot think clearly at six o'clock in the afternoon; what will he do at midnight?
We shall shortly be coming to some most important Amendments about the rights of appeal against the unfairness of the Bill and its application in individual cases. I certainly intend to play my part in the debates. On the other hand, I am as anxious as anybody else in the Committee to get a reasonable night's sleep and be in a reasonable state of health when Christmas comes, because I am a human being and I have domestic obligations. If that applies to me, it applies equally to the women staff


whom we are keeping late and whom we are expecting to work here from six o'clock in the morning until the Committee deems fit to allow them to go home.
The contraction of business is not due to some great urgency of Government business or to some great crisis in national affairs. If that were so, we would all of us have to stretch a point occasionally. But the Committee is unable to get ahead with its normal business at a normal hour because the Government cannot get their arrangements straight. This is not the first such occasion we have had in the last few days—it is becoming a daily occurrence. There have been the cases of the Swiss loan and the B.B.C. Charter and the mess-up with the Money Resolution of this Bill. The Committee and the House have spent as much time in the last few days discussing how the Government can get out of procedural difficulties they have created as it has spent on the contents of the legislation before it.
I suggest that it is not only I who need more sleep but the Government as well, in the interests of legislative efficiency and of progress, any Government that was either awake or sane would agree that it would be far better to recognise that they are getting end-of-term and stale, that they had better go home for the Recess and come back afterwards able to present procedural guidance to the House and the Committee and put their Bills in the right order, so that we can get our work done quickly.
It is time we heard from the new Sphinx imported into the Government Front Bench. We have a new phenomenon in Leaders of the House—someone who believes in the strength of silence. We have had to endure the unflappability of the Prime Minister which nearly landed this country in major disasters. Now we have to endure the phlegm of the Leader of the House. This is acting as a drag on the smooth running of the affairs of the House and this Committee. We needed that running to be oiled by more efficiency from the Government Front Bench, together with more clarity and more charity than the Government have shown. If they began by showing a bit more charity tonight to hon. Members, who have committed

on crime, and showing more charity to the staff, they might end by showing a little more clarity as well.

Mr. Hale: The curfew has long since tolled
…the knell of parting day,
the lowing herd has wound
…slowly o'er the lea,
and if the ploughman has not yet plodded home his weary way, his wife is probably wondering whether he has offered his libations to Bacchus or to Venus. Shadows of the evening are creeping across the sky, and it would now be proper for me to reveal a personal interest. I am the Member who had what I thought two days ago to be the luck to be allotted the Adjournment debate for tonight. I am beginning to regard it with more mixed feelings.
I do not want to detain the Committee. I suggest only eleven reasons why this Motion should be carried, and I will put them briefly and seriously. The first is that it is very bad policy, and always has been, to discuss major measures at this hour. Bernard Shaw, who was not bound by the rules of Parliamentary order, observed, somewhat improperly, that Parliament was in the habit of making decisions at midnight which no sane people would make at noon. One is bound to say that that is a danger.
11.0 p.m.
The second reason is that many Conservative Members will be wanting to make personal explanations. [Interruption.] I see that the Leader of the House is leaving the Chamber. I do not think that my hon. Friends are protesting. For my part, I apprehend that the Leader of the House is going to the Library for the purpose of arming himself with notes in order to make his reply to my speech. I was about to refer to the second reason why the Government should accede to our request. It is that many hon. Members of the party opposite, who have not been present during our debate except to come in and vote somewhat gratuitously and without any great cognisance of the effect of the call-up on married soldiers, may be wanting to prepare personal explanations.
The third, and perhaps most important of the reasons, is that Ministers themselves are very tired. The Secretary of State for War has shown himself to be tired throughout the afternoon, and


some of us have shown sympathy towards him. His must be an exacting task. I do not ask him to accept my view, but if he would consult with his hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) I am sure that he would get confirmation of the belief that the Secretary for War has not looked his best all the afternoon and evening. The right hon. Gentleman needs a rest and time for reflection.
Fourthly, there is the obligation to the staff who serve us so faithfully throughout the year. To keep them so very late so that they lose their last trains only a few days before Christmas when they must have many things to do at home is a bit cruel and quite unnecessary.
Fifthly—and this is related to what I have just said—the Secretary of State told us at an earlier stage that he is not going to do anything about the Bill for months and months. He does not propose to make a call-up for about six months and, therefore, there really cannot be any urgency about it at all.
I would suggest that the seventh reason is that there ought to be a period of consideration before we proceed further, and certainly before we ever dreamed of the idea of getting beyond Clause 1—which the Secretary for War has said is not directly concerned with the Money Resolution and which we ought to be able to look into as there has been a quite unprecedented amount of opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman has prophesied that at some future date he would endeavour to amend the Financial Resolution which is most important in relation to Clause 7. If we debate an Amendment which we have not seen there is no doubt that we shall be on the wrong road; and the longer the journey will be back and the more arduous and difficult will be the task. We may even injure the whole endeavour. It is a matter of personal opinion whether that would do any harm. It would certainly leave my personal withers unwrung.
The eighth reason is really important. The Secretary for War was not at his best when he told us about Christmas. When the soldiers of Oldham, maintaining widowed mothers, or those who have

relatives on National Assistance, read his references to Christmas they will say with Scrooge, "Out upon you and your Merry Christmas—your Christmas is all humbug." Eleven years ago this Christmas the Labour Government died and since then there has been doubt, difficulty, and uncertainty.
These are my main reasons; there were some more but those are sufficient. I declare the innings closed at that. The right hon. Leader of the House has not, I regret, had time to return, but I hope perhaps that the argument may be carried on by some of my hon. Friends until he has had time to consult the books and the references.

Mr. G. Brown: I want to say, Sir Gordon, how astonished we are at the way in which the Committee is being treated. We moved a Motion to inquire what were the Government's intentions, but we have been brushed off with a reply that did not even pretend to deal with our request. A little later, so that no time was wasted, I rose quite out of turn in order to put it to the Leader of the House, so clearly that he could not misunderstand me, that that was our intention in moving the Motion.
I put to him, as I had no obligation to do, a suggestion about the way in which we might make progress tonight, and I invited his comments. To that, there was no answer at all. At a later stage, when across the Floor I tried to invite him to give an answer, I was brushed off with what seemed to be a very rude commentary. Now, in the middle of this discussion, the Leader of the House has thought fit to walk out of the Chamber. In all the years I have been here I have never known the House or the Committee to be treated in this way on a Motion on which the Leader of the House alone is the final authority. It is to the Leader of the House to whom we are at this moment addressing arguments.
It is pretty clear what is going on. The Government have decided not to bother with our arguments. After a certain time, the Whip who now occupies the end seat on the Treasury Bench proposes to move the Closure. The Government have already behaved in that way and are no longer even bothering to go through the forms—the Leader


of the House does not even regard it any longer as being part of his duty to listen to this argument.
I am bound to put on record that this treatment of Parliament makes the whole business of Parliamentary democracy an absolute farce. If the Government want to proceed in this way, although they can get every Motion—maybe with your co-operation, Sir Gordon—every two hours or thereabout, they can get no more than that—there are other Motions that they will have to fight for every two hours or thereabout. To be treated in this way, with Ministers neither listening to us nor producing reasonable arguments—nor even being able to look interested enough to stay while the argument continues—is the most outrageous treatment of Parliament I have known in the fifteen years I have been here.
This Motion began as a genuine attempt to find out what the Government wished to do, how far they wished to get, and what co-operation would be forthcoming. At the end of an hour and ten minutes we have had nothing at all except this quite gratuitous treatment by the Leader of the House, who cannot speak when he is here but sits absolutely silent all the time, who is now so ashamed of his silence that he has walked out of the Chamber. The sooner the Home Secretary is brought back to handle the job the better for us all, and the better for the conduct of Government business.
I am bound to ask the Secretary of State, since he is now left here alone: will he try again? Do the Government desire to make progress tonight, or do they just wish to spend every two hours arguing some Motion? If they do, they will make no progress. I draw their attention to the fact that had they accepted the proposition I made almost an hour ago they could have had these Clauses by midnight tonight. They will not get those Clauses by midnight tonight, whatever happens now, and whatever co-operation there is. They will not get past this Motion for a little time yet.
We shall be here until 2 o'clock in the morning for the Clauses which they could have had by midnight had the Leader of the House been on his job. When they have those Clauses, we can

examine other propositions, and if they sit here until 6 o'clock in the morning they will have made very little progress beyond the point they could have reached at midnight if we had had a Leader of the House who could speak or take an interest.
It is not our function to facilitate the Government's business, but I say to the Government that, if they want to make progress with a hotly contested Bill, in a House of Commons in which they have a clear majority hut where they do not have a real concerted desire to have the Bill, then they must work with co-operation, and that means with our co-operation. That we offer. If we are to be treated in this disdainful way, then they will wait and wait. In the end, they will, I suppose, do what they want to do—force the Bill through without discussion—but it will add not to their glory, it will add not to the way in which the Bill is received in the country, and it will add nothing to the dignity of our proceedings.
I ask the Secretary of State, in the disgraceful and contemptuous absence of the Leader of the House, to send someone out to him, or, if not to him, to the Home Secretary, to ask him to reconsider the way in which we are being treated.

Mr. S. Silverman: It is astonishing that, at the end of more than an hour's debate, neither you, Sir James, nor any other Member of the Committee has the faintest notion of what the Government's intentions or wishes are. It is disgraceful. I can understand that, if a Minister is in charge of a Bill and he is having a somewhat difficult time, not seeing his way very clear ahead, he might very well be inclined to be obstinate at any suggestion of curtailing the discussion at too early an hour. No one will complain about the right hon. Gentleman if that is his view. But, if he wishes to go on like that, it is his plain duty to make up his own mind exactly how far he would like the Committee to go this evening.
If he makes up his mind, then it must be his duty to tell the Committee what it is that he wishes the Committee to do. All he has done so far, except for a lamentable reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) at the beginning, is sit in solemn


silence listening to plea after plea from hon. Members who asked to be told what the Government want, what was their intention, and what sort of constructive idea, if any, lay behind this obstinacy. He has not said a single word.
The right hon. Gentleman had the courage in his speech to say something about the spirit of Christmas. I am bound to say that of all Ministers I have ever seen at that Box, this one looks less like Father Christmas than any I have known in a long time. He has not had a single concession to make to anyone. His bag is not only empty, but he has left it outside the Chamber. He has had not a thing to give away, not even a piece of his mind. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has no beard."] If I could do anything whatever to repair the right hon. Gentleman's deficiencies, I should be prepared to assist. It is not only a beard he lacks. It is the heart he lacks.
The Secretary of State does not know where he is. He has been so bamboozled and knocked about during the earlier part of our proceedings today that, at this time of night, he is not merely incapable of knowing what he wants to be in the Bill or out of it; he does not even know how much of it he wants to get tonight or what he will do with it when he has it.
11.15 p.m.
Judging by the speeches the right hon. Gentleman has made, if we gave him all the stages of the Bill before midnight tonight—Committee stage, Report, Third Reading, summoned the absentees in another place to resume their duty and had the whole thing ready for the Royal Assent, even to bringing Her Majesty out of bed at seven o'clock tomorrow morning to give her assent to it—the right hon. Gentleman would not know what to do next. He has told us that he does not know. He does not know whether he wants to use any of the Bill's provisions. If he does, he does not know which; and, if he does know which, he does not know when.
The right hon. Gentleman does not have a glimmer of an idea. And now he does not even have the Leader of the House in the seat beside him to "Macleod" the issue. The right hon. Gentleman is completely lost. Talk

about the spirit of Christmas! The right hon. Gentleman is a "Babe in the Wood". He has had over an hour in which to consider the matter. He has lost the whole of this time. From his point of view, nearly an hour and a quarter has been completely wasted. At the end of this time neither he nor any hon. Member will have any better idea than we had at the beginning what we are to do tonight and how long we are to sit to do it.
Cannot the Secretary of State pull himself together a little? Cannot he make up his mind? Is there some official secret about how much of the Committee stage he wants before the House rises, or has the Leader of the House not yet told him? Let us consider how much progress we have made today. The first three hours were devoted to a discussion which the right hon. Gentleman himself invited. He contributed not a single word to that discussion until it had been going for two and a half hours—and then he made a half-hour speech to explain to the Committee that the whole thing was perfectly simple; that nothing needed explaining; that there had been no need for the discussion and that nothing was wrong. And now the right hon. Gentleman complains that we are not making enough progress.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make any such complaint, it is his business to say how much progress will satisfy him. He knows no more about that than the Government will know what they want when they go to the discussions in Paris about Berlin, which has been put forward as the excuse for having this Bill. They never know where they are or what they want. All they are doing is fumbling and fiddling about, bringing in ill-considered, ill-prepared Bills without knowing what they want.
What about hon. Members opposite? Many of them agree with much that has been said against the Bill by my hon. Friends. Cannot we hear from even one of them? Are they, too, going to sit in solemn silence? The hon. Gentleman the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) generally shows a little courage. I am prepared to resume my seat if that hon. Gentleman wishes to speak.

Ma. William Yates: I suggest that we get on and see how far


we can manage to get in the next hour. Then we can discuss the matter again—and start another hour's conversation.

Mr. Silverman: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. He really had nothing to say. It was not one whit different from what the Secretary of State had to say—and the hon. Member for The Wrekin has had to wait ten years for that. He had to wait until this time, on this night, on this Bill to find something on which he could agree with his Front Bench. I had better leave it there.
I hope that at long last the right hon. Gentleman may have reconsidered the matter. The fog may have cleared out of his mind, he may have had a new look at the Bill, at the Amendments on the Paper and at the clock, and he may now be able to tell us what he wants the Committee to do before we adjourn tonight.

Mr. Paget: I take it that the Leader of the House has been taken ill. We have all known him for a long time and we have known him as a man of courtesy. I feel certain that he would not have behaved as he did just now other than for reasons of acute physical illness. It is for that reason that I welcome the arrival of the Patronage Secretary, because in the absence through illness, doubtless, of the Leader of the House, somebody who can speak for the Government on this issue must be here. In a way, we hoped—but perhaps he is not available—that it would be the Home Secretary, who might have reverted to his old job which he handled with such skill and tact. In his absence, however, we hope that the Patronage Secretary will be able to assist. Therefore, I want to put to the Patronage Secretary what has happened.
An hour and a quarter ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) put, good-humouredly, this Motion to inquire the Government's intentions. That is not unreasonable. This is not a Bill on which anybody has suggested that we have been filibustering or spinning things out. I have been engaged in filibusters in my time, but this certainly has not been one. The Secretary of State will agree that on two or three

occasions, I have actually asked my hon. Friends to come to a decision to get along with the Bill, which, whilst it is unpopular and there must be proper discussion, none the less is one which we have no wish to obstruct.
At the appropriate hour at our last sitting to discuss the Bill, I had a few words with the Secretary of State and with the Patronage Secretary about what the Government wanted. They told us. We agreed, not to all they asked, but to a substantial amount, and it worked. That is what we imagined would happen tonight. It was in that spirit that we moved the Motion.
There is no suggestion as to the stage which the Secretary of State wants to reach. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), Deputy Leader of the Opposition, made a proposal, which he was under no obligation to make, that discussing four more Amendments might be considered to be reasonable progress. He put that directly to the Leader of the House, but we have observed that the Leader of the House was taken ill and was unable to reply to it—that is what in charity we must assume. But that does not mean that there ought not to be a reply.
I have been a Member of Parliament for a good many years and I have taken part in a good many late sittings, but I have never yet known an occasion on which, asked for their intention and what they wanted to do by an Opposition who have admittedly not been uncooperative, the Government have flatly refused to tell hon. Members. It is intolerable that that should now be the case. Here we are—and we do not want to keep the servants and staff of the House of Commons up—having absurdly spent an hour and twenty minutes waiting for a reply from the Government on a Motion of which we could have disposed in ten minutes, had the Government dealt with it in a normal manner, not in a clever way, but in the normal way in which the Government should deal with this sort of thing. What are the Government playing at in behaving like this? Now that the Patronage Secretary is here, we must assume that he is deputising for the Leader of the House, and surely he will give us some reply about what the Government want.

Mr. Denis Howell: I rise to support the Motion, because most hon. Members now realise that the position is far more serious than we thought at first. Is is now quite clear that the Government are completely unable to govern and that this is not just one incident—although it is bad enough—but the culmination of many of a similar nature which have arisen in recent weeks and which started with the question of the position of the Mace. [Interruption.] On behalf of the whole Committee, may I express our gratitude and say how delighted we all are to see the Leader of the House now recovered from his illness? I am sure that all hon. Members hope that he is now fortified and fit for several hours yet, Sir James.
Sir Gordon, those of us who study the permutations of football pools have been watching in the last few moments the permutations of Chairmen and Leaders of the House and Patronage Secretaries as they have moved in and out of the Chamber. I hope that the "new look" which we now have, compared with a few moments ago, means that we will now be given that information to which we are clearly entitled.
I join in the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). It was shocking that we should have been given an important Government announcement at the end of a debate which lasted three hours, and disgraceful that the announcement should not have been made at the beginning of the debate so that it might shave been properly considered by hon. Members. I think it is one of the reasons we are entitled to make our protest in this way by debating this Motion.
11.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State, as is well within the recollection of all Members of this Committee, before the Committee reached the end of the other debate, made this important pronouncement, and then, before any hon. Member could discuss the important new aspect of affairs, the Patronage Secretary forced the Closure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) drew attention a moment or two ago to the fact that every two hours the Closure is moved. As we have been discussing this Motion for one hour and sixteen

minutes we apparently still have a little time in which to discuss it. It is really astounding, and some Members of the Committee must protest about it, that the Government are not discerning and discriminating in allotting time to any Amendment. The first debate, in which I did not take part, was on twelve Amendments, and the Closure was moved to that debate—on twelve Amendments—as though it was just any other debate. It was scandalous when we were discussing such questions as the service of married men or men who had given notice to marry—

The Chairman: The hon. Member may not now go over a debate we have had.

Mr. Howell: What I am trying to do, Sir Gordon, is to show that the behaviour of the Government does not justify our continuing our deliberations tonight, and that we should, therefore, report Progress. We had the Closure moved on the previous Amendment irrespective of its merits or—

The Chairman: That does not affect the question of this Closure.

Mr. Howell: The speech I was going to make was a good one, but if I am not able to talk about hardship tribunals, National Service grants, reserved occupations, and so on, I will pass on to the next lot. The point I am trying to make is that the scurvy treatment by the Government of the Committee on those important matters gives me no confidence that we should now proceed with the next series of Amendments concerning people in Government service, the police, the ambulance service, the fire brigades, and, no doubt, the hospital service, and other ancillary services, whom we are to be called upon to discuss. I, as a local government man, having spent ten years in local government before arriving here, strongly—

The Chairman: We cannot now discuss the next Amendment.

Mr. Howell: I am trying to explain, Sir Gordon, exactly why we should not discuss the next Amendment, not only now but in a few minutes' time. I am strongly opposed to discussing any more Amendments tonight, particularly those relating to those matters.
There is another matter one ought to discuss and that is the question of tomorrows business. The House will be discussing an extremely important matter tomorrow, the question of Berlin, and the Members who are concerned about the situation in Berlin are the very Members who will be here tonight discussing whether National Service meets the Berlin situation. These two things are not divorced. The question of how many men we have in the Forces to deal with the Berlin situation is a matter which is bound to affect the judgment of Members on the political problem of Berlin.

Mr. Mellish: Does my hon. Friend realise that some of us—though I am speaking, for myself at the moment—are determined, because of the attitude of the Leader of the House, to have some fun and games on the question that the House should adjourn till 23rd January?

Mr. Howell: I am delighted my hon. Friend mentions that, because I was about to draw attention to the fact that tomorrow we shall discuss not only Berlin but the general question of loans from Switzerland—a subject a great many of us find very involved and intricate and upon which we require time in which the prepare ourselves—and the further question of the Adjournment Motion.
There are so many crises facing the nation at the moment that one does not know in which of the three important debates tomorrow one should prepare to take part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Take part in them all."] I am aware that hon. Members would like to hear me speak more often; but at this hour it is impossible to prepare properly.
My essential point is that the leadership of the Government has now completely broken down. One after another, Bills introduced by the Government have got into an unholy mess. The Commonwealth Immigrants Bill has hardly started on its course, but the Government had hoped to get it by Christmas.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot now discuss the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill.

Mr. Howell: I merely mention it, Sir Gordon, as an illustration of a Bill

which has got no further forward, comparatively, than this one. Because of the complete breakdown of the Government and the leadership of the House, I join my hon. Friends in saying that all this is lamentable. The most lamentable thing is that servants of the House are being kept here for a long while on the eve of Christmas. They are loyal people to whom we owe a debt. This is because of the ineptitude of the Government and the disastrous and disgraceful way in which the House of Commons is being treated. For this reason, I support the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker).

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): We are discussing a Motion moved by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again". Normally, that is entirely a matter to be dealt with by the Minister in charge of the Bill. It is undeniable that the debate on it has gone considerably wider, and a number of requests have been made that I should intervene in the debate, and I am very ready to do so.
I should like to put my position simply to the Committee. I am going to advise the Committee that we should accept the Motion so that we report Progress and ask leave to sit again, but I want the Committee to be quite clear about what is in my mind.
I have studied the progress of the Bill. When we have available HANSARD for this debate, hon. Members will be able to study some speeches, and I particularly recommend to them the speech of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). Therefore, although I shall recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept the Motion, it is only right for me to tell hon. Members that when tomorrow afternoon I make a statement about the business for the first week after the Recess, I shall announce that I shall be inviting the House to consider an allocation of time Motion both for this Bill and for the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: One on Tuesday and one on Wednesday, and Thursday also, if necessary.

Mr. G. Brown: Some of us indicated earlier how surprised we were at the cavalier treatment which the Leader of the House dealt out to the Committee. Because he walked out so contemptuously, I had to say what I had to say while he was not here. I should like to repeat it now. During the sixteen years that I have been in the House of Commons, no Leader of the House has treated the House as the right hon. Gentleman has done. What he has just come back to tell us, having left us in a temper and returned in one, I think he will regret.
He suggested that we should consult HANSARD. Let us have it on the record that the first three hours of the debate were taken up with a Motion to report Progress, before we had started, moved by his own Minister, who wished to clear up misconceptions into which the Minister himself had led hon. Members the last time we discussed the Bill. That had nothing to do with this side of the Committee or the whole Committee; it was the Minister's own decision and it was the Minister's mishandling which caused it.
We then had debates until just after ten o'clock. If the Leader of the House is not too contemptuous of us, perhaps he will look at HANSARD, where he will find that the Secretary of State said of his own free will that he had no complaint. Further, if speeches in the Committee mean anything to this contemptuous Leader of the House, the Secretary of State said that we had made very speedy progress with the Bill.
At 10.10 p.m. we sought to ask the Government's intentions. The fact that we are still debating the Motion at 11.40 p.m. is not our fault. It is the fault of the Leader of the House, who was unable to tell us the Government's intentions, who preferred to sit silent and who then walked out contemptuously in the middle of the debate, leaving the Secretary of State unable to speak for want of any authority to speak. Out of the whole of the day we have had four and a half hours wasted by the Government's own actions and behaviour.
It is humbug now to say that the decision to put on the Guillotine was taken in the last half-hour, since the Leader of the House walked out with that dramatic gesture. This was something which the Government had up

their sleeves. This is why he sat, not mute of God but mute of malice. He did so in order that he could pretend in a petty way that he had some reason for a Guillotine.
When he was not here I made a comment which I will repeat: had the Government been willing and had he been competent to take up the offer which I made when I first spoke, they could have had the next batch of Amendments by now. The Government need not bring in a Guillotine. This is a Bill which I heartily detest and I am not obliged to make any offer about it, but I offered the Government the next batch of Amendments if they would be happy with that progress. The Leader of the House had neither the grace nor the decency either to refuse my offer or to ask me to discuss something further, which is what the Home Secretary and other previous Leaders of the House used to do. He neither accepted my offer nor asked me for something better. He thought it consistent with his dignity to flounce out of the Committee in a fit of temper and then to come back and to say, "We shall have a Guillotine and it will stop all this nonsense about discussion".
Let me tell him straight away that, with his majority, he may force this on the House for a time. But he cannot crush a decent Parliament in this way, or cloak his incompetence by an appeal to an automatic majority for a Guillotine. We have been treated tonight in a way which is no credit to the Government. They have brought in a Bill which a large part of the country thinks is wrong. They are entitled to do that.
11.45 p.m.
We have co-operated tonight. We offered co-operation beyond what was due. We have put up with the most crass display of incompetence by the Minister filibustering on his own Bill. We have put up with silence from the Leader of the House on his duties. Any imposition of the Guillotine now will be the final confession of the absolute failure of the Government to do their own homework, an inability to maintain their own discipline, and an inability even to operate the machinery of the Committee. The Guillotine is a verdict on the Government, not on us.

Mr. Wigg: Before the Leader of the House goes to sleep tonight, will he reflect on this, that when we have all gone there are certain things left behind us. I suggest to him—and he knows that I believe this—that the Army is bigger than him or me or anyone here. It is a disciplined force. It carries within its ranks men of all political opinions who are required to carry out orders, and it has been the tradition of the House for as far back as my reading goes, and the object of successive Secretaries of State for War, to keep the Army out of politics, and for politicians, although they are carrying out a political function, to carry out their duties in the House, and make their speeches in the country, as far as they can on a noncontroversial basis. I believe that if the Leader of the House looks he will find no example during the last fifty years of the Guillotine being used as he proposes to use it tonight.
The Leader of the House will recall—and here I make no party point—that in 1950 the Labour Government, with a majority of six, were faced with the issue of the Korean war. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a number of my hon. Friends detest conscription and detest the use of arms and all that stands for, yet they took their courage in their hands and carried through an acutely controversial proposal without recourse to anything like this.

Mr. Nabarro: With the support of the Opposition.

Mr. Wigg: If the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) wants to say that, I do not dissent.
The approach tonight was made because the Secretary of State for War is the leader of the Army and not exclusively a party politician. I should have thought that as regards this Bill—and I draw a distinction between this Bill and the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill—it was in the interests of the Government, in the interests of the country, and, above all, in the interests of the Army, to rely on the honour and good will of the Committee to come to an agreement if it could, and to have second thoughts before taking the irrevocable step which the Leader of the House has proposed.

Mr. Gordon Walker: This is a sad day. It is a sad day for the Committee. It is a sad day for the Leader of the House. When he was appointed Leader of the House, I thought that he was going to be a very good Leader of the House, but he has turned out to be a very bad one, and he has given us an example of his bad leadership tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman has declared war on the Opposition. We accept the declaration of war. We will fight this war. There are plenty of means available to fight it. We take up his declaration. He has these two big Bills in Committee of the whole House. He has five Bills in Committees upstairs. He has the Finance Bill to come. He has to place the Defence White Paper before the House. There are plenty of opportunities in our system of Parliamentary democracy, when the Opposition are justly angry, to fight and fight against bad leadership, dictatorship, and the rule of an automatic majority. We accept the declaration of war by the Leader of the House.

Mr. W. Yates: I support what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said about the use of the Guillotine in Measures concerning the Forces. I speak as a serving Territorial Army officer, and I know that those in charge at the War Office, and especially the Ministers, try to get legislation concerning the Reserve Forces of the Army through in as non-controversial a spirit as they can. As a serving member of the Territorial Army, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether, before finally deciding to use the Guillotine procedure, he will try, through the usual channels, to make more progress with a Bill which is not only in the interests of our countrymen, but in the interests of the nation, and for the safety of the nation, as a whole.

Mr. Mellish: Because the Leader of House referred to my speech as one reason why the Guillotine procedure should be brought in, I rise to ask him to read the report of it in tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT. It lasted no more than a quarter of an hour. It was certainly relevant to the Amendment, and it expressed a view in which I passionately believe. I believe that, at the end of the day, conscription is inevitable. That is not a popular point of view to hold at


this time. I said that this Bill would not serve the purpose for which it was intended.
All I say to the Leader of the House is that, since he was not here when I made my speech, it is a piece of first-class humbug for him to refer to it as he did. [Interruption.] He was not here to hear my speech. I know who was on the Government Front Bench at the time. The truth is that he is convinced that I and some of my hon. Friends are associated in a desire to fight the Government with all we have. I should have thought that that was what we were elected for. I back up my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). If the right hon. Gentleman wants a fight there are many of us here who are looking forward very much to it, and he can start thinking now about his Transport Bill upstairs.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I had no intention of intervening in the debate until the Leader of the House made his grave statement a short time ago. I hope he realises haw the Opposition feel about this. He has already been told—and I do not think he can deny it—that the reason why the Government are in such difficulties about the Bill is not through any filibustering by the Opposition but because of the complete muddle into which the Government have fallen in the confusing way in which the Bill has been brought forward.
The right hon. Gentleman also surprisingly mentioned the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. It is astonishing that at this hour of the night, when we are debating another Bill, he should announce to the House, to the world, and to the Commonwealth, in particular, that the Government will impose a time table on the Immigrants Bill. For him, as an ex-Colonial Secretary who prided himself on his ideals and his belief in the brotherhood of man, I find it a very odd thing to do. [An HON. MEMBER: "Humbug."] It is not humbug. Most of us have been astounded that the right hon. Gentleman has remained on the Front Bench and has supported the Bill. We thought he meant what he said, but now we know that he did not. It is the business of the Leader of the House to

try to get the business of the Government through without using the Guillotine procedure and without using the automatic majority he has at his disposal.
I will say this for his predecessor, the Home Secretary: he has a pretty good record in this respect. The right hon. Gentleman has started extremely badly. I can assure him that his reputation among hon. Members on this side of the Committee has sunk lower than it has ever been, after tonight. We feel very deeply about the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, and we believe that the Government are also very wrong in this Army Reserve Bill.
What the right hon. Gentleman has done is to throw down a challenge to us—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has said—and I can assure him that we shall take it up. Means are open to us, over a wide front, to make things very difficult for the Government. He has asked us to do this, and we shall do it. He has given us notice. We can make our plans, too. I am sorry he has done this. It is bad for the Commonwealth, bad for our defence services and bad for the House of Commons, but he leaves us no option. War is declared. When we come back we shall show him what we mean. I venture to say that before many weeks or months are over he will be regretting bitterly the statement he has made tonight.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I should like to reply to two points, not to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said. The points were made by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). First of all, the right hon. Gentleman asked why I mentioned the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. Of course, I could have left it out—perhaps it was even out of order—but it seemed to me right to say it now rather than be accused tomorrow of not having told the whole story tonight. Naturally, the Leader of the Opposition feels deeply about a Guillotine. Every Leader of the Opposition always has done, and quite rightly, on every occasion.
I say this to the hon. Member for Dudley. He cares very deeply about the Army. I and the Committee know he does. I myself served for six or seven


years in the Army and I care about it, too. I simply believe that, if he studies what we have managed to do in these two days, he will agree that it will be more credit to the Army to take the remaining stages of the Army Reserve Bill properly, as we can do under the procedure I have indicated, than in the way we have proceeded in the last two days in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE ACT, 1948 (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend section thirty-one of the National Assistance Act. 1948, and to empower local authorities to provide meals and recreation for old people, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland which is attributable to the new Act.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ONCHOCERCIASIS AND TRYPANOSOMIASIS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind is an institution which has won the admiration and respect of everyone who has come in touch with its work either here or abroad. It prides itself—and I am not now making a political point—on being a Commonwealth organisation in the true spirit of the Commonwealth. I came across its work in Kenya in 1952. For some years I had no connection with it, and certainly the Society has had nothing to do with

the inspiration of the debate, although it would be true to say that its work has inspired it.
Some years ago I met Mr. Wilson, the director, himself a sightless man but nevertheless one of very great vision and a forceful and charming personality, who, on a small budget, has been rendering service to the most distressed people in the world, and who has a right to be proud of the work the Society has achieved in face of a very distinct limitation of means and of expenditure.
When I was in Nigeria in October last year, driving one day along a country road, I came across a sign which said "Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind." So I paid a wholly unpremeditated visit and was shown through the little station where one woman was in charge of a settlement of totally blind and totally incurable people, most of them suffering from onchocerciasis. Many of them were being trained in a station which was providing them with the best housing conditions they had ever known. Nevertheless, it was not very much better—and one would not expect it—than the accommodation we might provide for convicted prisoners.
In a small, open brick built home, with a table and two beds were two totally blind men who would be there for a four-months' training period. Thanks to this brilliant and devoted woman, they would be able to go back to their native villages, but then they might well find there was no welcome for them and that wives had gone because the harsh realities of poverty often impose hard decisions. They would go back, blind, and try to win a subsistence from a piece of bush; to cut away the brush and plant the seeds which had been provided for them and try to practise the techniques taught them at the centre, where the work was on hard and tropical ground and where they had to obtain added silt in order to enrich the soil. It was a most wonderful thing to see, and that developed my own interest in these matters.
I read in the Bibliotheque Nationale M. Toulart on the "Ocular manifestations of human trypanosomiasis", but I do not propose to develop that because there are conclusions not confirmed by Dr. Rodger on his most recent


survey in West Africa. He has stated that Tryparsimide used in an attempt to cure trypanosomiasis often produces ocular symptoms.
I will not develop that, but rather say one brief word about the general medical conditions. In a racy and attractive book, Dr. Robert Collis has described some of his work at Ibadan and a visit to the World Health Organisation when penicillin was being injected for yaws. At one small village there was a queue of 1,400 people, nearly all infected with yaws. There were three men to give the injections—one to identify the disease as yaws, one to scrub the buttock, and another to jab the hypodermic needle in; and the patients went away with an almost certain cure from a single injection. That was 1,400 people treated in one day. It must have looked rather like one of the German extermination camps during the last war, with the great difference that the one gave death and the other gave life.
At Ibadan there was a wonderful teaching hospital, but the moment it opened mothers and children came in hundreds every day, and the staff had to abandon its plans, saying, "We cannot turn these sufferers away". It is in that spirit that I turn attention to this dreadful disease. The magnitude of it is partly shown by the size of the figures which are often uncertain. In Malaya, the number of blind people has been variously estimated in a few years from 5,000 to 74,000. The Royal Commonwealth Society has published a figure of 650,000 blind people today in the thirty-nine countries of the Commonwealth. Dr. Rodgers' computation shows that 1 per cent. of the population of Nigeria was blind; and perhaps 3 per cent. in Ghana, with a smaller population.
Those are terrible figures, and one is entitled to ask what is being done about a disease of which, as every report says, still very little is known and towards a cure for which still little progress is being made. I therefore optimistically put down on 11th December a Question to the Minister for Science. The Parliamentary Secretary for Science replied:
Research into the causes and treatment of onchocerciasis and the control of the vector fly is being actively pursued in a number of centres in West Africa and elsewhere and I am

advised that there is no reason to believe that shortage of funds is inhibiting research in this field."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1961; Vol. 651, c. 16.]
I read that reply with the feeling that I could not express my views about it in Parliamentary language, so that there was nothing more to do about it except, perhaps, to recall the story of the man who wrote, "My shorthand-typist, being a lady, cannot take down what I think. I being a gentleman, cannot say it. You, being neither, might be capable of guessing."
I therefore decided to put down Questions to find out in detail what Her Majesty's Government were doing in this matter. I received an Answer from the Secretary for Technical Cooperation—the matter having been transferred after the Minister for Science had mucked it up—and the answer, in verbose detail, was "Nothing". I had a long written reply that this was being done in Kenya and that was being done in Ghana—but by the local Governments. "I am not my brother's keeper," says the Secretary for Technical Co-operation. "These people have self-government; they should do it themselves." The right hon. Gentleman said that things were being done in Uganda, in Kenya, and so on, but always by the local Government. Here at home there are two scientific workers partly on this and partly on other subjects, and, roughly speaking, about £3,500 a year might cover the lot. To the Question about how much is contributed from public funds to the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind, the answer is "Nothing". The Secretary says that he would not even put in the Library Dr. Rodgers' magnificent report. He says it is of no general interest. But it is one of the most moving documents I have ever read, and in the two days that it has now been in the Library it has already fascinated those hon. Members who have read it.
The problem of onchocerciasis has, of course, a somewhat complex history. The onchocerca is a microfilarial worm or parasite which infects the blood in a morbid condition. The figures show that about 400 million people in the world suffer from filariasis. The vector


fly in onchocerciasis is the Simulium damnosum, about which we still know very little, although a great deal of work has recently been done. It varies its habitat. We thought that it bred in waterfalls and rushing rivers, but it has been found in slow streams. Its condition and habitat in Guatemala are different from those elsewhere. It is extremely difficult, on the evidence available, to give any real information about the habitat of the Simulium.
The onchocerca develops inside the thorax. One gets the vector fly sucking the blood and absorbing the microfilariae, which develop by some curious chemical process into adult worms in its thorax, and, when it sucks blood again, injecting them back into human beings and, possibly, into animals, in a developed condition with a life of 12, 13, 14 or 15 years. They gradually make their way round the body. If they go to the scrotum they can cause elephantiasis or lymphodecanthopy. They largely go to the head, and cause this dreadful disease which, in adults, nearly always results in permanent, total and incurable blindness.
The Parliamentary Secretary for Science says that a great deal of knowledge has been acquired, there is no need to do anything else, and everything is going nicely. Every report I have read—I have seen a dozen in the past week—has a sentence which, in effect, says, "We do not know enough. Of course, this was too small an experiment. We did not have a chance." That magnificent researcher, Dr. Rodgers, said that owing to the illness of their one entomologist they were not able to deal with one of the most important points in the research, though it is fair to add that it was subsequently done on another occasion.
Professor Augustine of Harvard said:
While there is no aspect of onchocerciasis on which our knowledge is complete, lack of precise information on the relation of the parasite nymphadenopathy and elephantiasis is particularly striking.
Dr. Satti and Professor Kirk, in observations on the chemotherapy of onchocerciasis in the Sudan, described three cases of treatment by Hetrazan and said that, of course, three cases were quite inadequate, but they were so

short of drugs that they could not study any more. That was a question of the destruction of the filaria.
I had intended to say rather more, but, in view of the time, I will try to shorten what I have to say so that the right hon. Gentleman may have ample time to reply. I shall have to pass over what I had intended to say about try-panosomiasis and the use of that research as a model, and deal mainly with the proposals which are practicable in this connection.
The Rodgers report condemns the answer which the Parliamentary Secretary for Science gave. This is an extremely difficult condition to diagnose. The onchocerca themselves are nocturnal variants. Anyone wishing to examine them must do it at certain times. The Simulium bites at certain times, and so on. Children do not easily describe symptoms, and, of course, these are symptoms which are not noted. From the time the nodule is formed, it looks very much like an ordinary tumour. Until the spread over the body, a long period elapses, and for long periods the worm achieves something like symbiosis.
The second vital fact is the predisposing condition. It may be measles, it may be illness, but it nearly always is a vitamin deficiency. One of the most hopeful things I saw in Nigeria was a group of condemned but reprieved murderers in the prison at Lagos being used for dietetic experiments in order to discover protein substitutes which could provide a little extra nutrition for the children and people of Nigeria who are short not so much of calories as of proteins and vitamins.
The Simulium damnosum in West Africa is both anthropophilic and zoophilic, but in various other parts it alters, sometimes anthropophilic, sometimes zoophilic. No one has yet found out whether the filaria are transferred from animal to man. No one knows about the relationship with animals. No one knows why some varieties are active in the Sudan, some in Tanganyika, others dormant in Kenya, and so on. No one knows the true pathogenesis of the ultimate blindness. The accounts of the affection of the anterior and posterior parts of the eye are different. Many experts feel that there may even be a different originating cause. The main


suggestion in regard to the anterior part is that the damage is done when the worm dies: in the process of decomposition it produces chemical changes which rot the vital connections.
The answers to these problems are to be found, again, in terms of the Commonwealth and in terms of service. We keep sending expeditions these thousands of miles, yet nearly always they are inadequately equipped, however brilliantly they are organised, because money has to be raised, and it is not there. Why not a mobile unit? Experiments have taken place in Labrador on the destruction of the ovae, larvae and pupae of the Simulium by aeroplane. In Leopoldville there was an experiment using an Oxford plane distributing D.D.T. while flying at a height of not much more than 10 metres.
The areas in which there has been a planned attack on trypanosomiasis and destruction of the tsetse has shown that the destruction there does not greatly affect the Simulium fly. All too little is known about this. A mobile unit with a small but effective staff could do all of this effectively and really could make a great contribution towards solving one of the most serious, heartbreaking, most moving human problems that can be found anywhere in the world today.

12.15 a.m.

The Secretary for Technical Co-operation (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I join with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in paying tribute to the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind. That Society recently did me the honour of electing me vice-president and I am, therefore, well aware of the great interest it has in this subject.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government had refused to make any contribution to the Society's funds. According to the information available to me, no contribution has ever been requested by the Society. I think that should be put on the record, although it in no way alters my appreciation of the Society's services.

Miss Joan Vickers: When the Society was originally formed the Government gave £10,000 to it.

Mr. Vosper: I was aware of that, but I thought that the hon. Member for Oldham, West had in mind continuing or annual contributions. I do not think that that has been in the mind of the Society. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Devonport (Miss Vickers) has an interest in the Society. I realise that the hon. Gentleman, in pursuing this subject, has found himself moved from Department to Department, but overseas research in developing countries is a particular interest of technical co-operation, and those knowledgeable about these two diseases generally work in association with my new Department. I hope that the Department for Technical Co-operation will be a means of focussing more attention than has been the case in the past on the problems which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
I was first aware of the interest of the hon. Member for Oldham, West in this subject when he managed to inject a reference to it into his speech dealing with the repeal of the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, and I welcome the fact that he has now had an opportunity to develop his arguments at greater length tonight.
I wish to refer particularly to one of the two diseases named in the subject of tonight's debate, trypanosomiasis, because I think that it is against the background of the progress made in respect of that disease and because it is, perhaps, the better known of the two, that one can see the progress which still must be made in respect of the other.
They are both very crippling diseases only too well known in Africa. Much progress has been made in the case of trypanosomiasis in recent years. I will, therefore, say a word about that because it will guide us when considering the second problem. If one looks at the research one finds that it is divided into two heads; firstly, the study of the life and habits of the fly, directed to the devising of means of eradication or control, and, secondly, the study of the trypanosome and the development and trial of prophylactic and curative drugs.
There have been two approaches in respect of the first disease. In Africa, research into this work has been on a


co-operative basis. Countries in Africa, and countries which have interests in Africa, have all participated, and this sense of co-ordination and co-operation in respect of trypanosomiasis has been an integral part of the achievements that have been made.
About seventeen years ago the then Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs set up a Committee in this country to go into this question. It had the title of the Tsetse Fly and Trypanosomiasis Committee. It has been very active during these seventeen years. It still is active and it will become responsible to my Department as soon as arrangements for association with this work have been redefined.
The British share in trypanosomiasis research has taken three forms. In the first place, we have been associated with the setting up and maintaining of the East African Inter-Territorial Research Station in Uganda. Secondly, we have assisted with the setting up and maintaining of a similar station in Northern Nigeria. Thirdly, largely at the instigation of the United Kingdom Committee, work—this is a fairly new addition—is now being carried out in various centres in the United Kingdom as well as in overseas laboratories.
At home, these research projects are at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, at Liverpool University, at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, at the Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine and at Aberdeen University. We are in process of building a special laboratory at Bristol University, which should come into operation at some time in the coming summer.
All this work, which is in respect of trypanosomiasis, has been financed from Colonial Development and Welfare funds and during the last quinquennium amounted to just short of £1½ million. During the year 1960–61, £76,000 was spent on this research. That is quite apart from the work which has been carried on by the Medical Research Council at Mill Hill and, of course, by Colonial Governments at their own expense.
In the last Report of the Colonial Office there is, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West must know, a fairly full chapter on the work of this research, and

in the forthcoming Report of the Colonial Office, to be published early next month, there will be another chapter on the development of research in trypanosomiasis. If one studies that Report, together with the results of the work that has been done, it will be seen that notable advances have been made concerning the human aspects of this disease.
We have got to the stage—this should go on the record—where this disease can be controlled and cured wherever medical science is able to reach its victims. If there is a limit in respect of trypanosomiasis concerning humans in Africa, it is simply the provision of medical services and the willingness of the sufferers to come forward for treatment.
In animal trypanosomiasis we have not, perhaps, made quite the same progress, but techniques of insecticidal sprayings to assist in the clearing of areas from the fly and the maintenance of fly-free areas have been developed. These techniques are now being applied in large areas of East, Central and West Africa.
I should like at the end to say a word about the establishment aspect of research in Africa, but before I turn to the second disease which has formed the major part of the hon. Member's speech I want to leave the House with the impression concerning trypanosomiasis that, as the records and practical experience in Africa show, there has been much advance in this problem and it is a chapter of success.

Mr. Hale: I appreciate that.

Mr. Vosper: It is important for the House to realise that we have made achievements in this respect but that the limitations now are the provision of medical services and the willingness of the population to take advantage of them.
If I may turn against that background and that disease to onchocerciasis, this affects only humans and does not affect the animal population. The House should be clear that blindness is not normally an effect of trypanosomiasis, as it is of onchocerciasis. Unfortunately, this latter disease is widespread in West Africa. As the hon. Member knows


only too well, its effects are grave, particularly in the form of blindness.
If one looks at the position in East Africa, as I happened to do when I was there last week, I think it will be agreed that in Kenya at least, the disease has practically been eradicated. In Tanganyika it has been curbed and in Uganda, the third territory concerned, it has been greatly reduced by the use of D.D.T., to which the larval forms of Simulium neavei, which is the particular virus applicable, attached to fresh water crabs, are vulnerable. Research is continuing in Uganda by entomologists in the service of and paid for by the Uganda Government. Early this year, two research workers from Britain visited Uganda to conduct field investigations and they were financed by Colonial Development and Welfare funds.
I agree with the hon. Member that the position in regard to onchocerciasis in West Africa is not so happy. There has been concentrated research in West Africa for fifteen years. The main centre for research is the Helminthiasis Research Unit of the West African Council for Medical Research at Kumba, in what was formerly the South Cameroons and which has now become pant of the Cameroon Republic. There is also an outstation at Bolga Tanga in Ghana. It is now financed by the Governments of Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana and Gambia. The hon. Member will realise that, with one exception, those are independent countries.
While this unit was formerly financed out of Colonial Development and Welfare funds, the unit is now financed by the independent Governments concerned, with the exception of Gambia which, of course, is in receipt of a contribution under the Colonial Development and Welfare Scheme. Therefore, finance and

control of this unit, which is now in operation, is the responsibility of the independent Governments. The unit continues to investigate most of the subjects which the hon. Member mentioned. The Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind has itself recently made an independent survey into the problem.
The hon. Member feels that not sufficient is being done. With all research there is no limit to what can be done, but the limiting factor is generally that of ideas. I suppose that it is true that the more people there are engaged on research, the more ideas may be available, but I do not know that it is entirely true to say that more finance would necessarily find a solution to this problem. That initially now rests with the West African Governments, but if technical co-operation is to mean anything, it means that this country must be willing and able to take up any application which they may make. If my Department is able to help in this direction, we are only too willing to do so if application is made to us.
There is the very acute problem of the establishment and remuneration of research workers in the whole of Africa and particularly in West Africa. As the hon. Member knows, that is a problem which must be settled fairly urgently, and that is now under consideration between my Department and the Governments concerned. We consider it essential that ways and means be found to bring about the establishment—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour. Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.